Page 11

Update item information
Title Ends and means in conflict
Subject Nuclear warfare--Moral and ethical aspects; War--Moral and ethical aspects; War--Religious aspects; War and emergency powers--United States; Ends and means
Description The 49th Annual Frederick William Reynolds Lecture.
Creator Firmage, Edwin Brown
Publisher Division of Continuing Education, University of Utah
Date 1987-10-15
Date Digital 2008-05-29
Type Text
Format application/pdf
Digitization Specifications Original scanned on Epson Expression 10000XL flatbed scanner and saved as 400 ppi uncompressed tiff. Display images generated in PhotoshopCS and uploaded into CONTENTdm Aquisition Station.
Resource Identifier,1147
Source U263 .F57 1987
Language eng
Relation Digital reproduction of "Ends and means in conflict," J. Willard Marriott Library Special Collections
Rights Digital Image Copyright University of Utah
Metadata Cataloger Seungkeol Choe; Ken Rockwell
ARK ark:/87278/s6x34vfm
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-07-31
ID 320434
Reference URL

Page Metadata

Title Page 11
Description ENDS AND MEANS IN CONFLICT 11 revolution, the modern age of secular and territorial nation-states, the Renaissance and the Reformation had obliterated a radically different world of village culture, feudalism, and a universal order of religion and politics. While some substantive ends are memorialized in the Constitution, for example within the First Amendment, the bulk of that great charter deals with procedural means rather than with substantive ends. Consequently, we are not told under what conditions a virtuous state might resort to force and war in order to preserve or extend itself. No doctrine of just war appears, though one might argue that the Constitution's references to the law of nations incorporated some such notions. Rather, the Framers realized that the reasons we decided to go to war must be left for every generation to work through within the political branches of government. Whether we should go to war and under what conditions were political questions.15 But the way we go to war was not. The procedural means were carefully stipulated. If these procedural means were wisely chosen in the first place, and I believe they were, and if modern technology does not render them anachronistic, and I believe it does not, then we ignore this procedure, under the ideologically fueled heat of the moment, at our peril. Our self-righteous assurance of our own virtue and our own infallibility has led us to ignore these procedures in favor of a total commitment to our perceived ends, however self-destructive. Legal restraints have been swept aside by zealots contemptuous of law and democratic society. A. Peace and War16 We are not playing a game. We are in a situation which poses the greatest threat to our survival. Unless we are firmly resolved to settle problems in a peaceful way, we shall never arrive at a peaceful solution. Albert Einstein17 15 See Firmage, The War Powers and the Doctrine of Political Questions, 49 University of Colorado Law Review 65 (1977). 16 Parts of this section of the lecture were presented before the annual convention of the American Society of International Law (Boston, Mass., Apr. 8-11, 1987), and will appear in its Proceedings, published by the American Journal of International Law. Portions were also published by the journal The World and I, and are used with permission. See F. Wormuth & E. Firmage, To Chain the Dog of War: The War Power of Congress in History and Law (Dallas, Texas: SMU Press, 1986), for a full exposition of this topic. 17 T. Nathan & J. Norden eds., Einstein on Peace 529 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1960).
Format application/pdf
Identifier 014-RNLT- firmageE_ Page 11.jpg
Source Original Manuscript: Ends and means in conflict by Edwin B. Firmage.
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-07-29
ID 320395
Reference URL