Gonzales

[Michael Zimmer]

I know there are some standby statutes triggered with a declaration of war.
And the declaration of war, at least at one time, triggered international
law consequences for the belligerents but also neutral countries. Remember
the request of the Court by President Washington was over the internatonal
legal consequences of war between France and Britain.

What, if any, are the consequences today of a declaration of war versus an
authorization of the use of force? Should the Court, in a case properly
presented, say that the use of force can only be justified (absent
answering an attack) by a war declaration?  Or is this like the treaty v.
international executive agreement scenario?

Michael J. Zimmer
Professor of Law
Seton Hall Law School
One Newark Center
Newark, NJ 07102
973.642.8833
973.642.8194 fax


                                                                           
             "Stephen M.                                                   
             Griffin"                                                      
             <sgriffin at law.tul                                          To 
             ane.edu>                  <JBAER at politics.tamu.edu>,          
             Sent by:                  <cornell at mail.wsu.edu>,             
             conlawprof-bounce         <conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>,        
             s at lists.ucla.edu          <lawcourts-l at usc.edu>               
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
             02/07/06 02:24 PM                                     Subject 
                                       RE: Gonzales                        
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




Interesting.  I just told my students in conlaw I today that we are
still at war under the terms of the September 2001 AUMF.  Has the list
discussed this before?

There is a good analysis of the AUMF by Bradley and Goldsmith in the May
2005 Harvard Law Review.  I don't agree with every element of their
analysis, but if Congress wanted to avoid a long war against the
terrorists who participated in the Sept. 2001 attacks, they shouldn't
have approved the AUMF.  Once I actually get students to read the AUMF,
they all agree it is quite broad.


Steve Griffin
Tulane Law School

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lawcourts-l at usc.edu [mailto:owner-lawcourts-l at usc.edu] On
Behalf Of Judith Baer
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 2:17 PM
To: 'cornell at mail.wsu.edu'; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu;
lawcourts-l at usc.edu
Subject: RE: Gonzales

A gentle reminder, Cornell. We are not at war. Therefore, comparing
Gonzalez
to peacetime AG's is appropriate.
Judy

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.