The Politics of War Powers
The Theory and History of Presidential Unilateralism
The Constitution of the United States divides war powers between the executive and legislative branches to guard against ill-advised or unnecessary military action. This division of powers compels both branches to hold each other accountable and work in tandem. And yet, since the Cold War, congressional ambition has waned on this front. Even when Congress does provide initial authorization for larger operations, they do not provide strict parameters or clear end dates. As a result, one president after another has initiated and carried out poorly developed and poorly executed military policy. The Politics of War Powers offers a measured, deeply informed look at how the American constitutional system broke down, how it impacts decision-making today, and how we might find our way out of this unhealthy power division.
Sarah Burns starts with a nuanced account of the theoretical and historical development of war powers in the United States. Where discussions of presidential power often lean on the concept of the Lockean Prerogative, Burns locates a more constructive source in Montesquieu. Unlike Locke, Montesquieu combines universal normative prescriptions with an emphasis on tailoring the structure to the unique needs of a society. In doing so, the separation of powers can be customized while maintaining the moderation needed to create a healthy institutional balance. He demonstrates the importance of forcing the branches into dialogue, putting them, as he says, “in a position to resist” each other. Burns’s conclusion—after tracing changes through Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration, the Cold War, and the War on Terror—is that presidents now command a dangerous degree of unilateral power.
“Burns takes the reader on an exploration of American political thought (emphasizing Montesquieu), founding-era leaders, WWI and WWII, and the war on terror, bemoaning the decline of cross-institutional deliberation, engagement, and ambition. Highly recommended”
“Sarah Burns has written a sweeping account of the contentious debate over war powers through the eyes of Montesquieu, Locke, and an array of American statesmen. The author’s mastery of the philosophical debates over war powers coupled with her sound grasp of history makes for a remarkable read. Her insightful discussion of Abraham Lincoln’s interpretation of presidential war powers and prerogative power is worth the price of admission alone.”
—Stephen F. Knott, professor in the Department of National Security Affairs, United States Naval War College
“Sarah Burns’s The Politics of War Powers is a careful and illuminating study of the expansion of the president’s war-making powers at the expense of an often neglectful Congress. Beginning with a discussion of the founders’ thoughtful use of Montesquieu’s understanding of political moderation, Professor Burns then traces presidential understanding of these powers from Washington to the present. She argues convincingly that legal attempts to justify growing presidential control too often today replace debate and discussion about the prudence of military action.”
—Mark Blitz, Fletcher Jones Professor of Political Philosophy, Claremont Graduate University
“Those who ponder presidential power and America’s constitutional order have long needed such a comprehensive yet original book as Sarah Burns delivers. The Politics of War Powers articulates the lost Montesquieuan argument behind the letter and spirit of our unique constitutional frame and its distinctive executive power—and with an appropriate eye toward policy relevance for current and expected challenges. This broader view connects the big ideas about war and peace, the high politics of national strategy, and how these have played out in America’s history. A judicious yet urgent call to restore America’s constitutional moderation, it deserves to reset the terms of debate among scholars, lawyers, and our political leaders.”
—Paul Carrese, director of the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership, Arizona State UniversitySee fewer reviews...
Burns’s work ranges across Montesquieu’s theory, the debate over the creation of the Constitution, historical precedent, and the current crisis. Through her analysis, both a fuller picture of the alterations to the constitutional system and ideas on how to address the resulting imbalance of power emerge.