The Atlantic Council’s famous “Cyber 9/12 Strategy Challenge” competition is coming to Austin in January, in partnership with the Strauss Center at the University of Texas. Form your team and apply now!
Latest in Scholarship
Then-Rep. Gerald Ford once defined an impeachable offense as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” But legal scholars have concluded that impeachment is considerably more law-governed, and constrained, than Ford suggested. They draw on clues from the Founders, the text and structure of the Constitution, and the history of presidential impeachments (and near-impeachments) to make varying arguments about the impeachment power and the range of impeachable offenses.
Much has been written about the Trump administration’s broad understanding of the scope of executi
When the Framers wrote impeachment into the Constitution, they were drawing on a long history of English common law. But situated within that history, the first impeachment of a head of state had taken place relatively recently—less than 150 years before the drafting of the Constitution. On January 1, 1649, the House of Commons impeached Charles Stuart, then King Charles I of England, for attempting “to subvert the fundamental Laws and Liberties of this Nation.”
The Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin and Ohio Northern University’s Pettit College of Law (ONU), in consultation with the American Association of Law Schools (AALS) Section on National Security Law, have established the Mike Lewis Prize for National Security Law Scholarship. The prize honors Professor Mike Lewis of ONU, a much-loved colleague and prolific scholar who passed away in 2015.
Today is the publication date for my new book : “In Hoffa's Shadow: A Stepfather, a Disappearance in Detroit, and My Search for the Truth.” Here is a description from the book’s web page:
The American Association of Law Schools (AALS) Section on National Security Law seeks scholarly papers on any topic involving national security and the law. Three or more papers will be selected for presentation at the AALS 2020 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., at the Section’s Jan. 5 Works in Progress session. The author of the best overall paper will be invited to publish it in the Journal of National Security Law and Policy, subject to the Journal’s always helpful peer review. This Call for Papers is open to any tenure-track faculty member teaching at an ABA-accredited law school.
In the past two decades, the United States has applied a growing number of foreign and security measures directly targeting individuals—natural or legal persons. Administrative agencies have taken the lead in designing and implementing these measures. Empowered by delegations from Congress and the president, agencies largely control related fact-finding, target selection, routine management and administrative review of individualized measures.
In the course of researching a book, I’ve come across many episodes that Benjamin Wittes and I like to call “Weird War Powers $h*t.” One of my favorites is a story about American constitutional war powers and actual $h*t. It’s a story about very expensive bird-$h*t, or guano, and how one of the 19th century’s most important thinkers on war powers nearly stumbled the nation, figuratively speaking, into a giant pile of it.
Daniel Webster and War Powers
On this date in 1854, the U.S. Navy bombarded and torched the town of Greytown, in present-day Nicaragua. The event gave rise to a federal court opinion by Justice Samuel Nelson favored by modern-day lawyers who believe that the president wields vast unilateral power to use military force. The story behind the case reveals much more about how presidential naval powers, as well as congressional checks, operated in the mid-19th century.
Durand v. Hollins