Page 16

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 16
Description 16 EDWIN B. FIRMAGE constitutional power to wage war by private parties as well as by the armed forces of our country. While Lincoln in our Civil War would use that crisis to push to the limit of original constitutional intent, he did so with theories of constitutional empowerment and congressional acts, prospective and retrospective. As Harold Hyman noted, clearly he rejected European notions of etat de siege24. Franklin Roosevelt would do the same in moving us from isolation and neutrality into alliance and war. The theme before Korea and Vietnam could be summarized by Illinois Whig Representative Abraham Lincoln's opposition to President Polk's adventures into Mexico. Polk asserted a presidential right to invade another nation as an act of self-defense as Commander-in-Chief. "Allow a President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion . . . and you allow him to make war at his pleasure." The Framers gave this singular power to Congress, not one person, Lincoln said, so that "no man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us."25 It was in Korea and Vietnam that presidents, their counselors and some academics would assert a presidential power apart from congressional act to wage war under whatever name. The State Department in 1950 attempted to justify President Truman's entry into the Korean War by referring to the president's executive power, his power as Commander-in-Chief, his power to conduct foreign relations of the United States, and the United Nations Charter. Perhaps the closest we came to proposing that foreign crisis or war produced extra-constitutional executive power was the government's position during the Korean War in the Steel Seizure Case, a position rejected most purely by Justice Black, most pragmatically and practically by Justice Jackson, and most narrowly by Justice Frankfurter.26 The abuses of congressional prerogatives in foreign affairs during the Korean and Vietnam wars proved these constitutional provi- 24 Hyman, Quiet Past & Stormy Present?, American Historical Ass'n (1986). 25 Roy P. Basler (ed.), The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln I, 451-52 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1953), as quoted in F. Wormuth & E. Firmage, supra note 16, at 56. 26 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 587 (1952). See F. Wormuth & E. Firmage, supra note 16, at 171.
Format application/pdf
Identifier 019-RNLT- firmageE_ Page 16.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 320400
Reference URL