The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs After 9/11

by John Yoo

Book Overview

Since the September 11 attacks on the United States, the Bush administration has come under fire for its methods of combating terrorism. Waging war against al Qaeda has proven to be a legal quagmire, with critics claiming that the administration's response in Afghanistan and Iraq is unconstitutional. The war on terror--and, in a larger sense, the administration's decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto accords--has many wondering whether...

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0226960315
• ISBN13: 9780226960319
• Release Date: October 2005
• Publisher: University of Chicago Press
• Length: 378 Pages
• Weight: 0.15 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.2" x 6.1" x 9.3"

Customer Reviews

Important to understand Constitution after 9/11

This is an important book in order to understand the Constitution and the response to 9/11. The attacks on this book here are ridiculous. Even liberal critics of the Bush administration and Yoo think this is an important book. Cass Sunstein, a famous liberal law professor, wrote a review in the New Republic that said: "The most important theorist of the 9/11 Constitution is John Yoo." He says "Yoo has offered an inventive and provocative set of arguments about fundamental questions, and he presents his arguments with unmistakable determination and all the skill of a good lawyer."

Influential take on presidential power

The New York Times says Yoo was "a critical player in the Bush administration's legal response to the terrorist threat, and an influential advocate for the expansive claims of presidential authority that have been a hallmark of that response." He argues that the President has broad powers in wartime to protect us from attack. The book provides a lot of history and constitutional arguments to show it is true.

Provocative and intelligent

Critics posted here sound like they have not read this book. There are negative reviews of the book and positive ones, like Rivkin's in the National Review. People should buy the book and read it and decide for themselves. It explains the history behind the legal controversies over foreign affairs that have been going on for years. Defenders and critics of the Bush administration would do well to learn this history and the legal arguments before they argue over today's policies.

New Essential in Understanding the Constitution, War Powers & Foreign Affairs

Professor John Yoo, an accomplished constitutional scholar, has written a outstanding volume exploring the U.S. Constitution's allocation of powers in matters of war and international affairs. This overview of our Constitution's framework for understanding the roles and relations of the three branches of government in based upon clear reasoning and close attention to history and practice. Yoo deftly analyzes the respective roles of the Executive and Legislative branches in making and declaring war, arguing that the Constitution provides for a great deal of flexibility and latitude in dealings with foreign nations. He aptly deals with the debate over whether international treaties are generally self-executing or require implementing legislation, making a persuasive argument for the latter position as most consistent with the text and structure of the Constitution. Yoo also provides a sensible and coherent constitutional approach to understanding and distinguishing between treaties and congressional-executive agreements. These topics and others are treated in a careful and methodical manner, as Yoo generally argues from the viewpoint that the Constitution should be read in light of the original understanding of its ratifiers. He (wisely) advocates a conceptual framework for understanding our Constitution's approach to foreign affairs that is relevant and resembles actual historical and contemporary practice. (This is something that many scholars and theorists fail to do.) Throughout the book, Yoo demonstrates a mastery of both the constitutional case law in this interesting area and the legal scholarship that precedes his own work. The book is written in a clear and lucid manner, providing repetition on important points while avoiding any sense of repetitiveness. It is accessible to both those who are familiar with constitutional history and constitutional law concerning the separation of powers as well as those with some historical and legal background in those areas. This review can only scratch the surface in terms of the content of this work. Yoo's book is a first-rate intellectual achievement. And it will likely become a standard, authoritative reference for citizens and scholars (and especially originalists) in the years to come.

A Magnificent Work About the Legal Aspects of War and Peace

Ever since 9/11, the Bush Administration has been harshly criticized for its War on Terrorism. Many of its critics have taken the position that its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unconstitutional. The War on Terrorism combined with the Bush Administration's decisions regarding both the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto accords have provoked strong allegations that the Constitution's framework for foreign policy has been dismantled. The author of The Powers of War and Peace : The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11, John Yoo, is a former lawyer in the Bush Justice Department. He argues that the Bush Administration's foreign policy has solid precedent in the actions of previous administrations. Yoo points out that from the Undeclared Naval War With France in 1798 through Bill Clinton's war in Kosovo in 1999, American presidents have often prosecuted armed conflicts without formal declarations of war. He argues that the Constitution grants different powers over foreign policy to Congress, the courts and the presidency, requiring these institutions to negotiate what the country's foreign policy is. Yoo's argument is based on the original intent of the Founding Fathers supplemented with constitutional law and history. For instance, Yoo argues that just because a war is undeclared does not mean that it is unconstitutional. He points out that Congress's power of the purse gives it an effective veto power over executive decisions to go to war. He also points out that the 1973 War Powers Resolution has been systematically violated and has been treated as being de facto unconstituitional almost since the day that it was passed. He also argues that Congressional resolutions for war are legally unnecessary and serve only a political purpose in demonstrating unity in foreign policy and war. Yoo makes a number of arguments that are bound to provoke controversy. For instance, he argues that the Constitution allows the government to violate international law whenever it wants to. Yoo also holds the position that captured terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention since they are not combatants belonging to another country and by didnt of being terrorists did not obey the laws of war. The Powers of War and Peace : The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11 by John Yoo is an excellent work that is sure to ignite controversy and nationwide discussion/debate over these important subjects.