The constitutional balance of war powers has shifted from Congress to the president over time. Today, presidents broadly define their constitutional authority as commander in chief. In the nineteenth century, however, Congress was the institution that claimed and defended expansive war powers authority. This discrepancy raises important questions: How, specifically, did Congress define the boundaries between presidential and congressional war powers in the early republic? Did that definition change, and if so, when, how, and why did it do so?
Based on an original, comprehensive dataset of every congressional reference to the commander-in-chief clause from the Founding through 1917, Casey Dominguez’s Commander in Chief systematically analyzes the authority that members of Congress ascribe to the president as commander in chief and the boundaries they put around that authority.
Dominguez shows that for more than a century members of Congress defined the commander in chief’s authority narrowly, similar to that of any high-ranking military officer. But in a wave of nationalism during the Spanish-American War, members of Congress began to argue that Congress owed deference to the commander in chief. They also tended to argue that a president of their own party should have broad war powers, while the powers of a president in the other party should be defined narrowly. Together, these two dynamics suggest that the conditions for presidentially dominated modern constitutional war powers were set at the turn of the twentieth century, far earlier than is often acknowledged.
"synopsis" may belong to another edition of this title.
Casey B. K. Dominguez is professor of political science at the University of San Diego and the coeditor of Making of the Presidential Candidates 2024.
"About this title" may belong to another edition of this title.
Seller: GreatBookPrices, Columbia, MD, U.S.A.
Condition: New. Seller Inventory # 47112328-n
Seller: BargainBookStores, Grand Rapids, MI, U.S.A.
Hardback or Cased Book. Condition: New. Commander in Chief: Partisanship, Nationalism, and the Reconstruction of Congressional War Powers. Book. Seller Inventory # BBS-9780700636518
Seller: GreatBookPrices, Columbia, MD, U.S.A.
Condition: As New. Unread book in perfect condition. Seller Inventory # 47112328
Seller: California Books, Miami, FL, U.S.A.
Condition: New. Seller Inventory # I-9780700636518
Seller: THE SAINT BOOKSTORE, Southport, United Kingdom
Hardback. Condition: New. This item is printed on demand. New copy - Usually dispatched within 5-9 working days. Seller Inventory # C9780700636518
Quantity: Over 20 available
Seller: GreatBookPricesUK, Woodford Green, United Kingdom
Condition: As New. Unread book in perfect condition. Seller Inventory # 47112328
Quantity: 1 available
Seller: Revaluation Books, Exeter, United Kingdom
Hardcover. Condition: Brand New. 280 pages. 9.00x6.00x9.00 inches. In Stock. Seller Inventory # x-070063651X
Quantity: 2 available
Seller: GreatBookPricesUK, Woodford Green, United Kingdom
Condition: New. Seller Inventory # 47112328-n
Quantity: 1 available
Seller: Rarewaves.com USA, London, LONDO, United Kingdom
Hardback. Condition: New. The constitutional balance of war powers has shifted from Congress to the president over time. Today, presidents broadly define their constitutional authority as commander in chief. In the nineteenth century, however, Congress was the institution that claimed and defended expansive war powers authority. This discrepancy raises important questions: How, specifically, did Congress define the boundaries between presidential and congressional war powers in the early republic? Did that definition change, and if so, when, how, and why did it do so?Based on an original, comprehensive dataset of every congressional reference to the commander-in-chief clause from the Founding through 1917, Casey Dominguez's Commander in Chief systematically analyzes the authority that members of Congress ascribe to the president as commander in chief and the boundaries they put around that authority.Dominguez shows that for more than a century members of Congress defined the commander in chief's authority narrowly, similar to that of any high-ranking military officer. But in a wave of nationalism during the Spanish-American War, members of Congress began to argue that Congress owed deference to the commander in chief. They also tended to argue that a president of their own party should have broad war powers, while the powers of a president in the other party should be defined narrowly. Together, these two dynamics suggest that the conditions for presidentially dominated modern constitutional war powers were set at the turn of the twentieth century, far earlier than is often acknowledged. Seller Inventory # LU-9780700636518
Quantity: Over 20 available
Seller: Chiron Media, Wallingford, United Kingdom
Hardcover. Condition: New. Brand new book, sourced directly from publisher. Dispatch time is 24-48 hours from our warehouse. Book will be sent in robust, secure packaging to ensure it reaches you securely. Seller Inventory # 6666-GRD-9780700636518
Quantity: 2 available