The president of the United States is often mentioned in the media as the most powerful man in the world (Forbes 2012). But how far does his power reach in foreign affairs? Has he, as the commander in chief, the inherent power „to do anything, anywhere, that can be done with an army or navy“ (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 1952: p. 642)? Can the Supreme Court control the president when he is acting with this executive powers and his authority as commander in chief? Did the president had the power to order the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Congo rescue operation, the bay of pigs invasion, the intervention in the Dominican Republic or the engagement in the Cuban missile crisis without approval by Congress? Can the U.S. government detain foreign citizens indefinite at Guantanamo Bay and declare them as enemy combatants, without due process and suspend the writ of habeas corpus? Is the National Security Agency authorized to intercept international communication reputedly linked to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations?
This paper argues that there is no well-recognized inherent power giving the president the possibility to act in foreign affairs without judicial control and congressional authorization, even though there is a long debate about this issue.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Power of Foreign Affairs
2.1 The Original Intent of Foreign Affairs
2.2 Problems
3. The Shifting of the Foreign Affairs Powers
3.1 United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936)
3.2 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)
4. Foreign Affairs Powers Today
4.1 Rasul v. Bush (2004)
4.2 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)
5. Discussion
6. Sources
Research Objectives and Core Topics
This paper examines the extent of presidential power regarding foreign affairs and national security within the framework of the U.S. Constitution. The central research question explores how the U.S. Supreme Court has historically navigated and shifted the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, particularly during times of crisis and modern military conflict.
- The original constitutional design and the framers' intent regarding foreign affairs powers.
- Judicial interpretation methods and their impact on executive authority.
- Key Supreme Court precedents, including the Curtiss-Wright and Youngstown cases.
- Modern applications of presidential power in the context of the "war on terror" and the detention of foreign nationals.
Excerpt from the Book
3. The Shifting of the Foreign Affairs Powers
As it was shown, the issue of foreign affairs was a hot debated subject ever since. The Supreme Court decided, inter alia, two famous cases, which dealt with the external power of the president. The first one is United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), in which the court “has become an accomplice to the executive in foreign affairs” (Adler 1996b: p. 44). That case is famous for the courts expansion of presidential powers. In the second case, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the court tried to infringe the presidential power again. It follows that the different doctrines are active in the court, too.
3.1 United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936)
Facts of the case: On May 28, 1934, congress passed a joint resolution: „[I]f the President finds that the prohibition of the sale of arms and munitions of war in the United States to those countries now engaged in armed conflict in the Chaco may contribute to the reestablishment of peace between those countries, [...] he makes proclamation to that effect, it shall be unlawful to sell [...] any arms or munitions of war in any place in the United States to the countries now engaged in that armed conflict [...]“ (United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. 1936: p. 312)
President Franklin D. Roosevelt made immediately an Executive Order banning such sales. One day later, the defendant, the weapon manufacturer Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, sold fifteen machine guns to Bolivia, a country that was engaged in the conflict of Chaco.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Introduces the research question regarding the extent of presidential power in foreign affairs and outlines the structure of the paper.
2. The Power of Foreign Affairs: Analyzes the framers' original intent regarding the distribution of powers and identifies constitutional interpretation challenges.
3. The Shifting of the Foreign Affairs Powers: Examines landmark Supreme Court cases that illustrate the oscillation of power between the executive and legislative branches.
4. Foreign Affairs Powers Today: Focuses on the legal challenges regarding the detention of suspected terrorists and presidential authority in the modern "war on terror."
5. Discussion: Synthesizes the debate on unilateral versus shared power and addresses the risks of a powerful executive in an era of globalization.
6. Sources: Lists the academic literature, governmental documents, and case law used throughout the research.
Keywords
U.S. Supreme Court, Presidential Power, Foreign Affairs, Constitutional Law, War on Terror, Separation of Powers, Executive Order, Judicial Review, Curtiss-Wright, Youngstown, Rasul v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, National Security, Habeas Corpus, Commander-in-Chief.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this research paper?
The paper investigates the scope of presidential authority in foreign affairs and how the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this power throughout American history.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The study covers constitutional theory, the history of foreign policy distribution, judicial interpretation methods, and legal precedents related to national security.
What is the central research question?
It questions how far presidential power reaches in foreign affairs and whether the Supreme Court effectively controls the president when acting as Commander-in-Chief.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The paper utilizes a qualitative legal and historical analysis, focusing on primary sources such as the Federalist Papers, Supreme Court case law, and executive documents.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body analyzes the "original intent" of the framers, evaluates significant court cases like Curtiss-Wright and Youngstown, and investigates modern detention policies during the "war on terror."
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include presidential power, separation of powers, foreign affairs, judicial activism, and national security.
How does the "sole organ doctrine" influence the president's role?
The "sole organ doctrine" is often used to argue that the president has broad, inherent powers in external relations, sometimes bypassing congressional consultation.
What was the outcome of the Rasul v. Bush case regarding Guantanamo Bay?
The Court held that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus challenges from foreign citizens detained at the naval base in Guantanamo Bay.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Anna-Katharina Dhungel (Autor:in), 2012, The U.S. Supreme Court and the Liberal Constitution in the National-Security State, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/202905
