The President seems tailor-made for emergencies. He alone is capable of responding to a crisis with the necessary energy, decision, and force, all the while accountable to Congress and the people. The Constitution not only obliges him to take a solemn oath to preserve, protect, and defend it, it grants him a crucial role in thwarting rebellions and invasions. Little wonder that on some accounts, the Founders ceded the President a broad emergency power, either via the grant of executive power or the Commander in Chief Clause. Surprisingly few have examined the claim in any detail. This Article brings to light evidence on the President’s role in emergencies, concluding that the original Constitution rendered the Presidency constitutionally imbecilic. At the founding, the President lacked constitutional authority to seize property, suspend habeas corpus, or impose martial law, whatever the circumstances. We know this because the Presidency’s immediate predecessors also had grants of executive power and commander in chief authority. Nonetheless, they were decidedly feckless in crises, at least as a matter of their constitutional authority. The only time they could seize property, detain indefinitely, or try civilians before military courts was when their legislatures authorized such acts. Because the Constitution never marked a departure from the previous regime — because it never expressly granted the President such far-reaching crisis powers — it implicitly incorporated the pre-constitutional regime of impotent executives. Indeed, for decades after ratification, it remained clear to many that the Constitution never granted the President authority to seize property, suspend habeas corpus, or try civilians before military courts. Gradually, this imbecilic theory of Article II yielded to more robust conceptions of presidential power, with President Abraham Lincoln pressing executive crisis authority to new heights during the Civil War. Lincoln’s example looms over modern discussions of presidential emergency power, making respectable what once was unthinkable. The imbecilic executive has been supplanted by a muscular crisis executive.
For the over half-million people currently homeless in the United States, the U.S. Constitution has historically provided little help: it is strongly...
Gradualism should have won out in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, exerting gravitational influence on the majority and dissenters alike. In general...
Today, legal culture is shaped by One Big Question: should courts, particularly the US Supreme Court, have a lot of power? This question is affecting...
Constitutional review is the power of a body, usually a court, to assess whether law or government action complies with the constitution. Originating...
During times of crisis, governments often consider policies that may promote safety, but that would require overstepping constitutionally protected...
The United States has granted reparations for a variety of historical injustices, from imprisonment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War...
Supreme Court opinions involving race and the jury invariably open with the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, or landmark cases like...
This Article develops a new way of understanding the law in order to address contemporary debates about judicial practice and reform. The...
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Justice Thomas’s majority opinion announced that the key to applying originalist methodology...
In Poland, Venezuela, Rwanda, and several other countries, governments have in the past years altered basic rules of their constitutional system to...
In Chile, many commentators, academics and political leaders have spent years arguing that the limited nature of the social rights in the national...
At first blush, the debate between Stanley Fish and Ronald Dworkin that took place over the course of the 1980s and early 90s seems to have produced...
In our increasingly polarized society, claims that prosecutions are politically motivated, racially motivated, or just plain arbitrary are more common...
When federal judges are called on to adjudicate separation-of-powers disputes, they are not mere arbiters of the separation of powers. By resolving a...
Gender equality matters in the global public law academy for at least three reasons: the production of diverse scholarship, and substantive equality...
Ethnographic approaches are not as widely practiced among constitutional scholars as they probably should be. Some may harbor perfectly reasonable...