This chapter examines how the Supreme Court has responded to national security issues. More specifically, it considers two failures of the Supreme Court to fulfill its duty to “say what the law is”: its refusal to unequivocally reject the National Security Presidency's claim that the president has independent power to initiate offensive military operations without congressional consent, and its use of the technical doctrine of standing to prevent courts from ruling on cases that raise important statutory and constitutional issues. It also cites the case Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer and its importance to the constitutional war over national security. Finally, it highlights the problematic nature of presidential power and challenges the notion that every court ruling for individual rights is a defeat for democracy because presidents and legislators are elected while judges are not.
NYU Press Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.