The Reagan Administration has been aggressively attempting to arrogate power to the Executive branch and to undermine the separation of powers in the realms of foreign affairs. To Chain the Dog of War shows that for decades the Executive branch has moved to appropriate Congress’ war powers. The Reagan Administration not only has continued that tradition, but also has attempted to erode the Judiciary’s power to decide questions of law and fact concerning human rights and liberty in international extradition cases involving political offenses. The underlying rationale for this shift has been that decisions to make war or to condemn or condone terrorism are political decisions best made by the Executive. The sinister aspect of this rationale is that it liberates the Executive. The sinister aspect of this rationale is that it liberates the Executive to initiate acts of war and to promote, or at least condone, acts of terrorism committed by allies against common “enemies,” while condemning similar acts committed by the same or other “enemies.” This Essay reviews To Chain the Dog of War and extends the principles developed therein to signal more broadly some of the dangers to world peace and to our constitutional system presented by the current administration’s approach to foreign affairs.
1987 Utah L. Rev. 451 (1986).
Blakesley, Christopher L., "An Essay on Executive Branch Attempts to Eviscerate the Separation of Powers" (1986). Scholarly Works. Paper 307.