Presidential orders, even those issued as Commander in Chief, ..

Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton continued to rely on the President’s primacy over foreign affairs to launch wars without congressional approval other than funding support, including an enormous standing army and intelligence bureaucracy without precedent in American history, basing troops abroad on a virtually permanent basis—mostly with the full agreement of Congress.

Analyzing the Language of Presidential Debates : …

Analyzing the Language of Presidential ..

Kennedy were candidates vying for presidency during the Cold War, ..

Braker Professor of Law, Professor Salacuse teaches , , , and a new course , but in his post below, he tells us about one of his out-of-Fletcher activities.I moonlight as an international judge. For the past several years, while teaching full time at the Fletcher School, I have served as president of an international arbitration tribunal, hearing cases brought against Argentina by foreign investors in that country. The investors have claimed that the Argentine government had not treated them as it had promised in various bilateral investment treaties made with the investors’ home governments. A principal purpose of investment treaties, of which there are now about 3000 in the world, is to protect and promote investment between the countries that sign them. Under these treaties, each country promises, among other things, that it will not expropriate investments from the other country and that it will treat them fairly, provide them with protection and security, and will not discriminate unjustly against them.Promises are only as good as the mechanisms to enforce them. The enforcement mechanism in investment treaties is international arbitration, a process that allows investors to sue a foreign government before an independent international tribunal, to obtain compensation for injuries caused by that government’s failure to give the investor the treatment promised under the treaty. Granting a private party the right to bring an action against a sovereign state in an international tribunal is a revolutionary innovation that now seems largely taken for granted. Yet its uniqueness and power should not be overlooked. A similar remedy does exist in most other areas of international law. It is this mechanism that gives important, practical significance to an investment treaty, and truly enables investment treaties to afford protection to foreign investment. As a result, aggrieved foreign investors are bringing increasing numbers of arbitration claims when they believe host countries have denied them treaty protection, and in some cases tribunals have awarded them damages in the tens of millions and even hundreds of millions of dollars. Fearful that they may be subjected to “home-town justice” in national courts and will therefore receive prejudicial treatment, investors have preferred to plead their cases before an independent international tribunal rather than take their chances in national courts under the control of the government they are suing.Most investor-state tribunals consist of three arbitrators, one named by the party bringing the claim, another appointed by the party defending against the claim, and the third, usually, the president or chair of the tribunal, appointed by agreement of the two sides. The tribunal members are not the representatives of the parties but are to exercise their judgment independently. If arbitrators have not maintained their duty of independence, they may be challenged and removed from the tribunal. Each side is represented by lawyers, often major international law firms because of the amount of money at stake, and the whole process functions according to strict rules of procedure and elaborate principles of international law. Many investor-state cases take place under the facilities of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), an independent international organization affiliated with the World Bank and located in Washington, D.C.Although the United States is a party to almost fifty investment treaties, all of which provide for investor-state arbitration, and though it has even been a defendant in a few cases, public attention suddenly focused on this process only in the past year as a result of projected U.

In Defense of the President's War Powers - Princeton …

Congress, it is true, reacted to the expansion of the Presidency of the 1970s by enacting a series of laws, such as the War Powers Resolution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the Budget and Impoundment Act—all written in overreaction to one president, Richard Nixon.

[Damer] T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (6th ed), 2005.
Presidential War Power: Third Edition, Revised and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more

War Powers: Constitutional or Imperial Presidency.

In creating the first great departments of State, War, and Treasury in 1789, Congress debated whether the President needed the advice and consent of the Senate before he could fire cabinet members, and, in what has become a controversial decision among historians and legal scholars, recognized the President’s power to fire heads of departments.

United States presidential debates, 2012 - Wikipedia

Even in the midst of the Nixon scandals, the Supreme Court agreed in the Watergate tapes case that the President’s interest in protecting sensitive military and diplomatic information and encouraging candid advice and discussion within the government, justified secrecy over certain information.

Our greatest Presidents—Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt, and the Presidents of the Cold War—have built the institution and power of the presidency in coordination with their political parties.

as his Vice Presidential candidate

Until recently, most historians have considered Hamilton to have had the better argument, and certainly presidential and congressional practice has favored executive control over foreign affairs ever since in American history.

Hamilton’s arguments expanded on a debate in the first Congress about the bureaucracy.