Roosevelt & C-i-C Powers

Sat Jan 28 12:43:12 PST 2006

For what it is worth, a forthcoming book by Jonathan Alter, on Roosevelt's first hundred days, notes in the first chapter that there were quite a few calls, from quite respectable sources, including Walter Lippmann, that FDR, in his inaugural address, assert basically dictatorial powers to confront the challenge of the Depression.  That would presumably have led him to say (something like) "we must fear the future, but fortunately, I stand ready to identify the fears and to confront them however I see fit" rather than "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."  (I take it that no one can imagine Bush trying to dampen our fears, except with regard to global warming and more category 4-5 hurricanes.  Parden me for yet another partisan rant.)  And, of course, a number of other respectable people were quite taken with Mussolini (see John Patrick Diggins book on the subject).  

sandy

________________________________

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Jonathan Adler
Sent: Sat 1/28/2006 1:29 PM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Roosevelt & C-i-C Powers

The federal government's briefs in Quirin argued that the executive power over enemy combatants was "absolute" and could not be limited by Congress or the courts. (See Louis Fisher, Nazi Saboteurs on Trial at 94 ("Biddle and Cramer underscored their position that the judgment of trying the saboteurs lay solely with the President, and that neither Congress nor the judiciary could interfere with his decisions.")).  This was not their primary argument, as they also maintained that they were acting consistent with relevant Congressional acts, but the argument was made nonetheless.  Of course, the Supreme Court declined to endorse this expansive position in Quirin.  As I recall, Fisher's book also suggests that it was well understood at the time that the saboteurs would be executed no matter what the Supreme Court held. In addition, Roosevelt claimed that the conspirators were not entitled to any process in civilian courts.

JHA

------------------------------

Jonathan H. Adler

Associate Professor

Case Western Reserve University School of Law

11075 East Boulevard 

Cleveland, OH 44106

ph) 216-368-2535

fax) 216-368-2086

cell) 202-255-3012

jha5 at case.edu

________________________________

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 1:11 PM
To: Marty Lederman; DavidEBernstein at aol.com; mschor at suffolk.edu; VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu
Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: The Left, patriotism, and threats to the Capacity of My In Box

Sorry:  I meant to add that, to his credit, David was hinting at an actual ConLaw question here, and one actually related to my question of yesterday, to boot! 

So, on the "merits":

In what way did FDR and Wilson ever claim "far broader presidential powers" than Bush has ever claimed?  In particular, when did FDR (or Wilson) ever claim the right under the C-i-C Clause to violate duly enacted statutes?  (There actually is an FDR speech in which he threatened this -- but I think it was mostly throat-clearing, in an attempt to browbeat Congress to amend the law.  Can you even imagine Geroge Bush having made a public speech demanding that Congress amend FISA or else he'll violate it?  Not his modus operandi.)  

I'm not familiar with any FDR threat to execute the Quirin conspirators even in the teeth of a SCOTUS injunction.  Sounds very interesting.  More info, please.

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Marty Lederman <mailto:marty.lederman at comcast.net>  

	To: DavidEBernstein at aol.com ; mschor at suffolk.edu ; VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu 

	Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 

	Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 9:46 AM

	Subject: The Left, patriotism, and threats to the Capacity of My In Box

	Are there any "secessionist" fans among us?  Any non-patriots (as if that appellation could possibly shed more light than heat)?  Am I the only one who thinks that this listserv has increasingly veered far from its ostensible subject and who yearns for the Good Ol' Days when we actually used to have rigorous, interesting discussions about, uh, constitutional law?  (No, really:  they actually existed for at least a month or two there, back before Bush v. Gore.)  

	I know that's very Twentieth-Century of me, but I'm an old-fashioned guy; and anyway, I have an ulterior motive -- namely, getting info from this learned assemblage on the constitutional (history) question I asked last night.

	P.S.  I do have a very capacious view of what counts as "constitutional law."  Really.  Just sayin' . . . 

		----- Original Message ----- 

		From: DavidEBernstein at aol.com 

		To: mschor at suffolk.edu ; VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu 

		Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 

		Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 9:27 AM

		Subject: Re: The Left, patriotism, and threats to the constitutionalorder

		I'm just wondering how many of you secesssion fans think that there should have been secession during WWII, when FDR claimed far broader presidential powers than Bush has ever claimed, and in fact sent the AG to tell the USSC that he was going to execute the conspirators in the Quirin case regardless of what the USSC held in that case?  And let's not even get started on Woodrow Wilson... I sense a distinct lack of historical perspective here.

		In a message dated 1/28/2006 9:06:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, mschor at suffolk.edu writes:

			If love of a quasi-mystical sense of country and not love of constitutional principles now binds the nation together, then President Bush has little to fear when he claims that no law limits his mandate to protect our nation.

		David E. Bernstein
		Visiting Professor
		University of Michigan School of Law
		Professor
		George Mason University School of Law
		http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste

________________________________

		_______________________________________________
		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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20060128/3027385c/attachment.htm