Friday, January 21, 2005
new blawg about international law. http://lawofnations.blogspot.com/
I posted this comment in a geneva conventional thread.
gt said...
The president, as commander-in-chief, has the authority, at least in wartime, to make decisions in battle without being micromanaged by congress.
I personally don't see rules such as "don't torture random civilians for sport" as interfering with that, but that isn't my main point.
The american legal system evolved out of the british one, in which the commander-in-chief was a distinct office. They didn't teach us legal history at mizzou, and I really don't know much about this. What rights or privileges did the commander-in-chief have against interference by parliament or monarch? Do those still exist as part of executive privilege, and tell us anything useful about current separation of powers doctrine?
Cordially, the arbitrary aardvark.
http://vark.blogspot.com.
I posted this comment in a geneva conventional thread.
gt said...
The president, as commander-in-chief, has the authority, at least in wartime, to make decisions in battle without being micromanaged by congress.
I personally don't see rules such as "don't torture random civilians for sport" as interfering with that, but that isn't my main point.
The american legal system evolved out of the british one, in which the commander-in-chief was a distinct office. They didn't teach us legal history at mizzou, and I really don't know much about this. What rights or privileges did the commander-in-chief have against interference by parliament or monarch? Do those still exist as part of executive privilege, and tell us anything useful about current separation of powers doctrine?
Cordially, the arbitrary aardvark.
http://vark.blogspot.com.
Comments:
Post a Comment
