Waging War

August 29, 2016
Barron, a federal appeals court judge, surveys the fraught struggles between presidents and congresses over their war powers since before the creation of American constitutional government in 1787 and up through the Obama administration. . Barron takes strong issue with the claim that presidents trying to circumvent Congress and the legislature trying to limit presidential war-making are recent innovations, showing that neither branch of government has ever allowed the other to declare or wage war without interference. He argues vigorously from the authority of experience as acting assistant attorney general in the Obama Administration’s Office of Legal Council (in which capacity Barron drafted a controversial legal memo authorizing the use of lethal drone strikes against American citizens without due process) that recent presidents have always stopped short of asserting the “sweeping power to run the wars in which they have led the country however they have seen fit.” The book should be read widely by those responsible for the development and implementation of national policies. It’s a fine example of the use of history to illuminate current circumstances and to counter unsupportable claims and arguments about Congress and the president. Agent: Andrew Wylie, Wylie Agency.

A 1st Circuit Court of Appeals judge chronicles the centurieslong push/pull between the executive and the legislative branches over the conduct of America's wars.The proposed Constitution designated the president as the commander in chief but reserved for Congress the authority to declare war and to raise an armed force. Notwithstanding assurances from the likes of Alexander Hamilton, patriots George Mason and Patrick Henry refused to support ratification. Almost 200 years later, historian Arthur Schlesinger, who spent his professional career cheerleading on behalf of an energetic executive, reversed himself, chiding a supine Congress for allowing a succession of presidential exercises of military force so consequential they threatened to remake "all aspects of the modern presidency." Today, most everyone recognizes the folly, as William Howard Taft once observed, of permitting Congress to try, "as the people of Athens attempted, to carry out campaigns by votes in the market-place." At the same time, few believe decisions about war belong solely to the president. Drawing on numerous episodes from our history, Barron (co-author: City Bound: How States Stifle Urban Innovation, 2008) fleshes out the back and forth between the branches, the elaborate mix of constitutional and statutory law, politics, and popular opinion that shapes decisions about how the country wages war. In smoothly readable prose, with a sure grasp of the big picture, the author addresses such issues as the treatment of enemy prisoners under Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, and George W. Bush; FDR's adroit advocacy of Lend-Lease, which Attorney General Robert Jackson helped engineer, and Harry Truman's wartime seizure of the steel mills, which Justice Robert Jackson censured; James Buchanan's deference to Congress as Civil War approached versus Lincoln's startling assumption of authority in Fort Sumter's immediate aftermath; congressional acts, resolutions, and amendments designed to rein in presidents from Andrew Johnson to Nixon; presidents Madison and McKinley, virtually stampeded into battle by an aroused Congress; and presidents Adams and Jefferson, who strenuously avoided ruinous wars under similar pressure. A first-rate history filled with revealing incidents and informed analysis. COPYRIGHT(1) Kirkus Reviews, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Starred review from December 1, 2016

U.S. Circuit Court Judge Barron has written an insightful treatise on how Congress and the presidency have negotiated war powers throughout U.S. history. Barron details of how there is a fear of an uncontested executive, which harkens back to the nation's founding. Congress was granted a Constitutional check on the president's powers to enter the country into war. Barron writes that this check has ebbed and flowed over time. The more interesting parts of this book include when the executive was stripped of powers during the Andrew Johnson and Gerald Ford presidencies. This work does not drown in legalese, though one needs to take time to comprehend fully what the author has put forth. There are small gaps in the history that could have been included if this volume were to be expanded into a series. However, overall, this is a valuable work that bolsters Constitutional understanding such as Jack N. Rakove's Original Meanings or Max M. Edling's A Revolution in Favor of Government. VERDICT Highly recommended for Constitutional scholars and those who appreciate a back-and-forth debate.--Jacob Sherman, John Peace Lib., Univ. of Texas at San Antonio

Copyright 2016 Library Journal, LLC Used with permission.