Though a good deal of war powers scholarship makes claims about the original meaning of "declare war," these works do not consider a host of sources pertinent to the inquiry. This Article considers these materials and sheds new light on two questions. Does Congress's power to declare war encompass the authority to decide whether the nation will wage war? Relatedly, does Congress's power to decide whether the country will wage war extend to those situations where another nation already has declared war on the United States? This Article answers both questions in the affirmative. In the eighteenth century the power to declare war was a power to decide whether a nation would wage war. Materials from that era reveal that any decision to wage war, however expressed, was a declaration of war. The commencement of warfare was regarded as the surest declaration of war. Because the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, only Congress can determine whether the nation will start a war or enter a war against a nation that already has declared war against the United States. Necessarily, the President cannot unilaterally choose to wage war against another nation, even when that nation has already declared war.
{"title":"Unleashing the Dogs of War: What the Constitution Means by 'Declare War'","authors":"S. Prakash","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.977244","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.977244","url":null,"abstract":"Though a good deal of war powers scholarship makes claims about the original meaning of \"declare war,\" these works do not consider a host of sources pertinent to the inquiry. This Article considers these materials and sheds new light on two questions. Does Congress's power to declare war encompass the authority to decide whether the nation will wage war? Relatedly, does Congress's power to decide whether the country will wage war extend to those situations where another nation already has declared war on the United States? This Article answers both questions in the affirmative. In the eighteenth century the power to declare war was a power to decide whether a nation would wage war. Materials from that era reveal that any decision to wage war, however expressed, was a declaration of war. The commencement of warfare was regarded as the surest declaration of war. Because the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, only Congress can determine whether the nation will start a war or enter a war against a nation that already has declared war against the United States. Necessarily, the President cannot unilaterally choose to wage war against another nation, even when that nation has already declared war.","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"105 1","pages":"45"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2007-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67919743","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Administrative agencies frequently use guidance documents to set policy broadly and prospectively in areas ranging from Department of Education Title IX enforcement to Food and Drug Administration regulation of direct-to- consumer pharmaceutical advertising. In form, these guidances often closely resemble the policies agencies issue in ordinary notice-and-comment rulemaking. However, guidances are generally developed with little public participation and are often immune from judicial review. Nonetheless, guidances can prompt significant changes in behavior from those the agencies regulate. A number of commentators have guardedly defended the current state of affairs. Though guidances lack some important procedural safeguards, they can help agencies supervise low-level employees and supply valuable information to regulated entities regarding how an agency will implement a program. Thus far, however, the debate has largely ignored the distinct and substantial interests of regulatory beneficiaries--those who expect to benefit from government regulation of others. Regulatory beneficiaries include, among others, pharmaceutical consumers, environmental users, and workers seeking safe workplaces. When agencies make policy informally, regulatory beneficiaries suffer distinctive losses to their ability to participate in the agency's decision and to invoke judicial review. This Article argues that considering the interests of regulatory beneficiaries strengthens the case for procedural reform. The Article then assesses some possible solutions.
{"title":"Regulatory beneficiaries and informal agency policymaking.","authors":"Nina A Mendelson","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Administrative agencies frequently use guidance documents to set policy broadly and prospectively in areas ranging from Department of Education Title IX enforcement to Food and Drug Administration regulation of direct-to- consumer pharmaceutical advertising. In form, these guidances often closely resemble the policies agencies issue in ordinary notice-and-comment rulemaking. However, guidances are generally developed with little public participation and are often immune from judicial review. Nonetheless, guidances can prompt significant changes in behavior from those the agencies regulate. A number of commentators have guardedly defended the current state of affairs. Though guidances lack some important procedural safeguards, they can help agencies supervise low-level employees and supply valuable information to regulated entities regarding how an agency will implement a program. Thus far, however, the debate has largely ignored the distinct and substantial interests of regulatory beneficiaries--those who expect to benefit from government regulation of others. Regulatory beneficiaries include, among others, pharmaceutical consumers, environmental users, and workers seeking safe workplaces. When agencies make policy informally, regulatory beneficiaries suffer distinctive losses to their ability to participate in the agency's decision and to invoke judicial review. This Article argues that considering the interests of regulatory beneficiaries strengthens the case for procedural reform. The Article then assesses some possible solutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"92 3","pages":"397-452"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2007-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26645161","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A response to Bloch, Lubbers & Verkuil's \"The Social Security Administration's new disability adjudication rules\": a cause for optimism ... and concern.","authors":"Robert E Rains","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"92 2","pages":"249-55"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2007-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26550473","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Social Security Administration's new disability adjudication rules: a significant and promising reform.","authors":"Frank S Bloch, Jeffrey S Lubbers, Paul R Verkuil","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"92 2","pages":"235-47"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2007-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26550472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Medical proof, social policy, and Social Security's medically centered definition of disability.","authors":"Frank S Bloch","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"92 2","pages":"189-234"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2007-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26550471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Lessons learned from the \"laboratories of democracy\": a critique of federal medical liability reform.","authors":"Alexee Deep Conroy","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"91 5","pages":"1159-202"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2006-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26133023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A parent's predicament: theories of relief for deportable parents of children who face female genital mutilation.","authors":"Kimberly Sowders Blizzard","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"91 4","pages":"899-926"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2006-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26052088","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Property law has eluded both a consistent definition and a unified conceptual framework. Instrumentalists insist that property is nothing more than default contract rules. Conceptualists proclaim the primacy of in rem conceptualization and of specially privileged rights such as the rights to exclude. Others think of property as an infinitely malleable bundle of sticks.We demonstrate that any comprehensive property theory must address four legal questions: (1) What things are protected by property law; (2) vis-a-vis whom; (3) with what rights; and (4) enforced by what mechanism. Then, we introduce a value-oriented theory to show how property law answers these questions by recognizing and helping to create stable relationships between persons and assets, allowing owners to extract otherwise unavailable utility.Our approach illuminates recent property developments, and demonstrates the need for reform. Additionally, we demonstrate the need for property occasionally to yield to other legal fields like secured transactions.
{"title":"A Theory of Property","authors":"Abraham Bell, Gideon Parchomovsky","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.509862","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.509862","url":null,"abstract":"Property law has eluded both a consistent definition and a unified conceptual framework. Instrumentalists insist that property is nothing more than default contract rules. Conceptualists proclaim the primacy of in rem conceptualization and of specially privileged rights such as the rights to exclude. Others think of property as an infinitely malleable bundle of sticks.We demonstrate that any comprehensive property theory must address four legal questions: (1) What things are protected by property law; (2) vis-a-vis whom; (3) with what rights; and (4) enforced by what mechanism. Then, we introduce a value-oriented theory to show how property law answers these questions by recognizing and helping to create stable relationships between persons and assets, allowing owners to extract otherwise unavailable utility.Our approach illuminates recent property developments, and demonstrates the need for reform. Additionally, we demonstrate the need for property occasionally to yield to other legal fields like secured transactions.","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"90 1","pages":"531"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2005-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67754635","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The legality of the use of psychiatric neuroimaging in intelligence interrogation.","authors":"Sean Kevin Thompson","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"90 6","pages":"1601-37"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2005-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25632009","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The poor state of health care quality in the U.S.: is malpractice liability part of the problem or part of the solution?","authors":"David A Hyman, Charles Silver","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"90 4","pages":"893-993"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2005-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25307429","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：