Think about the significance of the idea of no standing army. If the President has no money and no army to fight a war, his dependence on Congress for foreign policy adventures is complete (according to the text of the Constitution). Regulate milita Note that militia were about defending the people; Was understood in Republican theory as the bastion of protection against a tyrannical gov’t, and to respond in case of invasion while Congress was raising an army. There were federalism issues about how would be in control of militates. The result: compromise. President is the commander of the militias, but officers are state. But the power to call them out was in Congress. Power to make rules for governance over land of military. it looks broad, but DG doesn’t think it actually is It was about articles of war. every military force had to have its own internal rules These were generally embodied in something in the English tradition were in the articles of war. Idea was to borrow the British articles of war and apply them to the US. Today the Uniform Code of Military Justice was just the codification post-WWII of the Articles of War. These are the internal rules of the military. e.g. Court martial procedure; rank; privilege; punishment, etc. It’s not about interaction with the enemy. Power to regulate foreign commerce We typically think about this among the states. But it’s also with Indians and foreign states; Framers didn’t think you could regulate foreign commerce effectively unless you could regulate interstate commerce. This foreign commerce power was essential at the time. Related to core idea that US would be free port for the whole world! Idea that we would have no tarrifs. Neutral power which is the free port for trade, and the model treaty was designed to bring that into effect. Power to define and punish offences against law of nations
has to make sure that Congress' legislative programs aren't undermined Ct. also relies on “protective power of presidency”; idea is that Prez must have power to protect framework of government generally seen as a power in C2. Like the sole organ power. We don’t know exactly where it comes from or what its limits are. Notion about appropriate role for the executive. See Vinson's dissent in Youngstown Expands President’s powers, at in C2, sounds of silence Debs (1895) Facts: Strike, blocking mail and commerce. President decides to send in troops, then brought suit in federal court seeking injunction against strike (no law allowing injunction in this context). Majority Court inferred ability to grant injunction because President was acting in protective, Neagle-like function. High water mark of how far Court was willing to go in allowing President to use this kind of power. Congressional Powers Bas v. (1800) Important from historical perspective, but not clear how much weight it holds today Facts: Congress’s series of naval measures allow different compensation scheme for salvage. Conflict of statutes – does first or second apply? Majority: Court finds that the second (later in time) applies. Ct. assumes that Congress, under it’s power to declare war, has plenary control over the scope of war (subject to the LON); Court upholds Congress’s ability to define the scope of the war Perfect (full scale war) v. imperfect war (more limited war) Congress is recognized as having a power to be able to do something different from declare war. But to authorize war/military hostilities in a more limited sense and to define the scope of this.