Page 13

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 13
Description ENDS AND MEANS IN CONFLICT 13 More than half of our people now living in a very real sense have not known peace. We have been subject to a Cold War since World War II ended. Previous generations have enjoyed peace at least between wars. Now almost every problem, domestic and foreign, is considered within a matrix of Cold War. Hatreds that in times past were intentionally set loose in time of war were mercifully confined within the period of war-1914-1918, 1941-1945. Now endemic fear is maintained through generations. Administrations preach hatred and suspicion of foreign foes for domestic political advantage as much as for preparedness actually to be able to meet an enemy. A military-industrial complex has become a permanent part of an economic structure that has become addicted to massive military spending. With the governmental officers who all too often join the companies with whom they dealt while in government, these industries perpetuate themselves without regard for the national interest. In decades past a peacetime economy for a discrete time would change temporarily to build instruments of war and then quickly revert to the productivity of peace. Now our scientists and engineers are increasingly drawn into producing the technology of war while the infrastructure of our economy from our factories to our transportation systems erode and our spending for social needs is squeezed below the minimal requirements of social justice. It is time in this bicentennial year of our Constitution to reevaluate our commitment to a condition of peace and to our institutional structures that preserve it. B. Constitutional Conclusions The war power of Congress is an institutional means of controlling the inclination to make war precipitously, presumptuously. For us today, this provision is a structural, horizontal check on war-while arms control measures and the laws of war hit at vertical, singular issues. In 1789, Thomas Jefferson made this statement of insight: We have already given . . . one effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose, from the executive to the legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay.19 19 Julian P. Boyd, ed., Papers of Thomas Jefferson XV, 397 (Princeton, N.J.: 1978), as quoted in F. Wormuth & E. Firmage, supra note 16.
Format application/pdf
Identifier 016-RNLT- firmageE_ Page 13.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 320397
Reference URL