Skip to content

Tag Archives: Rick Pildes

The US Government Position on Imminence and Active Self-Defense

By
Thursday, February 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM

(Updated and extended.)  The White Paper’s reference to imminence has occasioned some heated rhetoric about the Obama administration stretching the notion beyond all possible ordinary meaning or bounds, etc.  But it’s worth bearing in mind that there’s nothing new in this from the standpoint of the US government.  The US government has held this view . . .
Read more »

Bond v. United States and the Treaty Power Debate

By
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 10:40 PM

The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear an important case concerning the government’s foreign affairs powers, Bond v. United States.  That case, which involves a criminal prosecution under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, raises fundamental issues about the relationship between the government’s authority to enter into treaties and constitutional principles of federalism.  I wrote . . .
Read more »

Rick Pildes and Nick Rosenkranz Debate the Treaty Power at Volokh Conspiracy

By
Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Lawfare readers might be interested to follow a Volokh Conspiracy online debate between Lawfare senior contributor/NYU professor Rick Pildes and Volokh blogger/Georgetown professor Nick Rosenkranz on whether a treaty can increase the legislative power of Congress.  Rick is guest-posting at Volokh in a couple of exchanges with Nick; they are continuing a debate they began . . .
Read more »

National Security-Related Panels at this Weekend’s AALS Conference

By
Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 11:50 PM

It’s that time of year…time for my annual round-up of national security-related offerings at the annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools, which occurs in New Orleans this coming weekend.  The offerings are a bit thinner in number this year than in the recent past, yet there are still many gems.  If you . . .
Read more »

NYU Debate on Targeted Killing

By
Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 4:45 PM

A few months ago, New York University hosted a public debate on targeted killings among three of its prominent faculty members.  The discussion, which is now available on video, involved Philip Alston, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, who has written critically of the United States’ drone program from an international . . .
Read more »

Liveblogging Session 7: Keynote Address of New York Times Reporter Charlie Savage

By
Saturday, September 17, 2011 at 5:46 PM

The Keynote Address begins with a brief introduction from Jack. He notes that one thing extraordinary about Savage is his ability to extract information from government officials and the clarity with which he can describe and discuss complicated legal issues. He then hands over the podium to Savage. Savage begins by noting the slight awkwardness . . .
Read more »

Liveblogging Session 6: The Presidency in the Post-9/11 World

By
Saturday, September 17, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Prof. David Barron kicks off the last panel discussion of the conference, focusing on the Presidency in the Post-9/11 World.  He begins by noting that it is not surprising that a serious national security crisis will change the presidency.  Second, he thinks there is a great deal of agency with respect to the presidency.  Lastly, . . .
Read more »

Rick Pildes on WPR

By
Friday, June 17, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Rick Pildes has a very thoughtful post at Balkinization on the constitutional politics of the War Powers Resolution, the difficulties Congress faces in responsibly controlling executive discretion to make war, how Chadha enhances these difficulties, and what to do about it all.  A flavor: Other legal structures for allocating legislative and executive responsibility over uses . . .
Read more »

Problems with the Obama Administration’s War Powers Resolution Theory

By
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 8:38 AM

In this long post I analyze the Obama administration’s legal arguments for compliance with the War Powers Resolution.  A later post will consider the broader significance of the arguments. Here is the administration’s formal explanation of its compliance with the WPR: The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with . . .
Read more »

White House Clarifies Position on Libya and the WPR: US Forces Not Engaged in “Hostilities”

By
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Charlie Savage at the NY Times has just reported that the White House is today providing Congress with information on ongoing operations in Libya, including an explanation of the Administration’s position as to why the continuation of the operation beyond 60 days does not violate the War Powers Resolution.  The core of the argument, as . . .
Read more »

Problems with Military Detention (Cont’d.)

By
Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 8:51 AM

Two quick thoughts in response to Jack’s post from early this morning: First, it bears emphasis that the sort of policy creativity reflected in the dialog between Jack and Rick Pildes concerning options like fixed-length detention terms can only come from legislative engagement. When the court entertains such ideas based on current law, the ideas . . .
Read more »

Problems with Military Detention

By
Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 4:53 AM

I have argued that the Executive branch should rely on military detention, not trial, for the GTMO population.  In practice, this is what the Obama and Bush administrations have been doing, with tiny exceptions, for almost nine years.  And Judges have upheld the practice for those enemy soldiers who fall within the AUMF. But as time . . .
Read more »

More on Military Detention

By
Monday, October 11, 2010 at 5:20 PM

I received some unsurprisingly heated reactions to my op-ed in Saturday’s New York Times, which argued that the government should give up on prosecuting Guantanamo detainees and simply hold them in military detention instead.  (I have made versions of this argument before, including last spring with Ben and several years ago with Eric Posner.)  I am not against trials . . .
Read more »