Bush Orders State Courts
doughr at udallas.edu
Wed Mar 9 09:10:56 PST 2005
A great example for thinking through principles and practice; how many would defend such action were it not dealing with this set of circumstances?
Peter Shane is quoted in the Dallas Morning News today as saying that, "This is an administration that is resurrecting a theory of the executive that we have not seen advanced in an aggressive way since the Nixon administration -- and is probably going beyond even Nixon's view." But both Shane and Doug Kmiec are cited as defending the executive's power in this case, given the treaty requirements.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Jeff Renz" <jr167163e at mail1.umt.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:00:15 -0700
>I didn't see it as a hoax even though it is a startling development. My bewilderment is the President's "Order." I doubt that he can command a state court to do anything. He could order the US Attorneys to appear as amicus curiae. He could make findings and conclusions in his Exec Order that defendants' attorneys could rely upon. But directives to the state courts? Could he conclude, in an EO, that National Security requires state courts to . . . . [fill in the blank with the flavor of the month.]
More information about the Conlawprof