Richard Epstein's 'Roid Rage

Legal theory rockstar Richard Epstein worries about "Executive Power on Steroids" in today's Wall Street Journal. A close reading of the clauses of the Constitution concerning control of the military, Epstein argues, rebuts the notion that the president's "inherent authority" as commander in chief exempts him from having to comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Comments

[SR]

It's a "subscribers only" link. 🙁

[MP]

Speaking of Tricky Dicky Epstein, I just saw an ad for his new book How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution in Reason.

[B.P.]

I worry about the use of tired cliches like "[blank] on steroids" and "[blank] on acid".

Let's not go there. Let's think outside the box to come up with some new quips. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up with some fresh material.

[Rick Barton]

Ahh! How do we access the piece? Cuz if we can't, I'm gonna go out and buy today's issue of the WSJ.

[duck duck goose]

There is (what sounds like) a similar discussion by Michael Dorf at Findlaw.com (http://writ.news.findlaw.com).

It looks like it contains a similar discussion and comes to similar conclusions, but it has the added benefit of being free.

[Number 6]

Bugmenot doesn't offer a password, so I'm screwed.

[Wild Pegasus]

I'm not sure how carefully you have to read the Constitution:

"[The Congress shall have Power t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 14.

If the President is exercising his power as Commander-in-Chief, his power is subject to the rules and regulations of Congress. That wasn't hard.

- Josh

[Rick Barton]

Ok, I bought the WSJ issue. I'll read the piece and comment tomorrow. Thanks for the other link, duck duck goose.

[Rick Barton]

...by "tomorrow", I mean later today.

[Randolph Carter]

B.P.,
That was a quietly brilliant post