Publication Date
2006
Abstract
Perhaps the most important constitutional issue of our time involves claims by the President to exercise power sufficient to confront ostensible 'emergencies" faced by the United States. One question is whether the Constitution grants the President sufficient powers. If not, are presidents justified in going 'beyond the Constitution"in order to do what they believe necessary in the given context? Professor Levinson demonstrates that debates about "emergency powers" have been a feature of our political system almost from its beginning. Many of those deemed our "greatest" presidents-Jefferson, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt-have acted in questionable ways with regard to what might legitimately have been thought to be constitutional constraints. A critic of the current Bush Administration,such as Professor Levinson, must confront the question of whether the critique of President Bush's policies and actions is based simply on the degree to which it departs from fidelity to law or, rather, on political judgments as to the merits of those policies. And is this ultimately true of one's assessment of the actions of our past presidents?
Recommended Citation
Levinson, Sanford
(2006)
"Constitutional Norms in a State of Permanent Emergency,"
Georgia Law Review: Vol. 40:
No.
3, Article 2.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol40/iss3/2
