Wednesday, April 13, 2011

The Concurring Opinion of Justice Jackson

In the concurring opinion of Justice Jackson, he lays out three "over-simplified" groupings of situations in which a President's may doubt his own power, or be challenged by others. The first situation occurs when the President is acting along with Congress, and here his power is at its maximum. The second is when the President acts when there is no congressional grant or denial of authority specifically stated, therefore he is acting within his own discretion. The third is when the President acts against the implied will of Congress, therefore Jackson states that the President's power is at its "lowest ebb."

By stating these three situations, Jackson seems to understand that the President does not need the consent, or even the approval, of Congress to make decisions or act. However, he does not appear to be to fond of this notion. He says that the Court comes into play when the President is in "a zone of twilight" or when he is acting against the will of Congress. During these times, the court's role is to make sure that the presidents actions are constitutional.

In relation to the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. case, Jackson's opinion seems to lean towards the idea the Truman acted wrongly. However, his wrongdoings are specific to this case and Jackson makes it clear that the president should have complete control over his role as Commander in Chief, so much of Jackson's opinion is concurrent with the U.S. Constitution, because he is quite skeptical of giving the President too much power. Thusly, he supports the same sort of checks and balances that are outlined in our Constitution. 

Monday, April 11, 2011

A Doctrine, or not a Doctrine?

Obama and Clinton had very similar speeches. Clinton's reasons for action were to protect innocent people, to prevent war, for peace, and to give people their freedom, which are pretty much the same as Obama's. Both men are trying to get the U.S. to back foreign intervention by appealing to citizen's emotions and sympathy. They both place an emphasis on haste of action as well. Clinton says that "ending this tragedy is a moral imperative" and Obama says that we cannot "turn a blind eye to these atrocities," both appealing to a moral obligation we should feel for other freedom (which is an appropriate way to make our selfish selves feel guilty). Basically, the overall reason for action in both cases is not because it is necessarily in our interest, or going to benefit us in any way, but rather to assure the same rights and freedoms that we enjoy to those around the world.

Obama's speech was far too specific to be a doctrine. He spoke only of the conflict in Libya and what role we would take there in this particular instance. Obama also put alot of emphasis on the fact that this was an allied attack and that the U.S. would be taking a supporting role by letting NATO and our foreign allies take a more robust stance. By making this address specific enough as to avoid making a doctrine, he is leaving room for interpretation when dealing with other conflicts, such as the ones in Darfur, and the Ivory Coast. The speech was good for setting out our plan in Libya, not in foreign altercations altogether-- or a "recalibration of national military strategy."

 I think it is smart for Obama to make his military agenda vague, rather than propose a doctrine. By doing so, he creates the ability to make foreign military action unique. Therefore, it is hard to tell what he would have the U.S. do in other situations, and while this middle-grounded approach may be vexing, its not like we have been the bastions of good foreign military intervention so why not leave things up in the air. Obama put an emphasis on the short number of days it took for us to achieve our goals in Libya (31 to be exact), which perhaps foreshadows his desire to act fast, or faster than we have in the past, when dealing with foreign conflicts. And while there are many other conflicts going on internationally (Ivory Coast, Yemen, Syria) we cannot act on all of these and do an efficient job, so presidential discretion on which are the most threatening/important must be implemented.

As for Clinton's speech, it is kind of doctrine-ish. While it is somewhat specific to the conflict in Kosovo, he also says that if America is going to be prosperous and secure, Europe needs to be prosperous and secure. By stating this, Clinton seems prepared to act upon any conflict that may arise and threaten one of our "key" U.S. allies and eliminate all threats of drawing these key players into a wider conflict. By creating a doctrine, Clinton had us intervene in many more countries than Obama has and had America take a more dominant active role in foreign conflict. While Clinton's speech on the conflict in Kosovo had us take a more active role in all foreign conflict than Obama's on Libya, they both place an emphasis on acting out of compassion and in haste to avoid the mistakes we have made in the past by waiting to intervene.