Zones of Twilight
24%
off

Zones of Twilight : Wartime Presidential Powers and Federal Court Decision Making

3 (1 rating by Goodreads)
By (author) 

Free delivery worldwide

Available. Dispatched from the UK in 3 business days
When will my order arrive?

Description

Zones of Twilight examines how the federal courts decide wartime cases when rights are limited, arguing that the courts do not use rights-based language but instead decide cases emphasizing the institutional structure of government, the separation of powers. Using a unique approach and a broad scope, DiPaolo examines all relevant cases from the 1800 to the present.show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 262 pages
  • 149.86 x 220.98 x 22.86mm | 385.55g
  • Lexington Books
  • Lanham, MD, United States
  • English
  • 0739138340
  • 9780739138342

About Amanda DiPaolo

Amanda DiPaolo is assistant professor of political science at Middle Tennessee State Universityshow more

Review quote

DiPaolo (Middle Tennessee State Univ.) examines how federal courts rule when the national government has limited individual liberties during times of national emergency. Using Justice Robert Jackson's Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952) framework ina case law-based analysis, DiPaolo observes that in cases in which the president justifies his actions by claiming national security concerns, the federal courts will often opt not to rule on the larger constitutional issues at stake. Rather, they will evaluate the president's actions based on whether or not Congress has legislated. This 'separation of powers' approach, she suggests, protects the courts from bowing to the pressures of the moment and making a mistake that will, in the long run, weaken thejudiciary and the Constitution itself. DiPaolo's very thorough...case retellings are helpfully summarized by various tables that classify the decisions based on whether or not the court agreed with the chief executive's decision, and whether or not Congress had legislated in the particular subject area. Recommended. CHOICE, September 2010 DiPaolo (Middle Tennessee State Univ.) examines how federal courts rule when the national government has limited individual liberties during times of national emergency. Using Justice Robert Jackson's Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952) framework in a case law-based analysis, DiPaolo observes that in cases in which the president justifies his actions by claiming national security concerns, the federal courts will often opt not to rule on the larger constitutional issues at stake. Rather, they will evaluate the president's actions based on whether or not Congress has legislated. This 'separation of powers' approach, she suggests, protects the courts from bowing to the pressures of the moment and making a mistake that will, in the long run, weaken the judiciary and the Constitution itself. DiPaolo's very thorough...case retellings are helpfully summarized by various tables that classify the decisions based on whether or not the court agreed with the chief executive's decision, and whether or not Congress had legislated in the particular subject area. Recommended. CHOICE, September 2010show more

Table of contents

Chapter 1. Introduction Chapter 2. Guiding War Powers Judicial Decision Making Chapter 3. Military Detentions Chapter 4. Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Chapter 5. Economic Property Rights Chapter 6. Free Speechshow more

Rating details

1 ratings
3 out of 5 stars
5 0% (0)
4 0% (0)
3 100% (1)
2 0% (0)
1 0% (0)
Book ratings by Goodreads
Goodreads is the world's largest site for readers with over 50 million reviews. We're featuring millions of their reader ratings on our book pages to help you find your new favourite book. Close X