Louis Fisher – författare

A classic and bestselling work by one of America’s top Constitutional scholars, Presidential War Power garnered the lead review in the New York Times Book Review and raised essential issues that have only become more timely, relevant, and controversial in our post-9/11 era.

In this third edition, Louis Fisher updates his arguments throughout, critiques the presidential actions of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and challenges what he views as their dangerous expansion of executive power. Spanning the life of the Republic from the Revolutionary Era to the War on Terror, the new edition covers for the first time:

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama spoke often about his constitutional principles. In particular, he objected to George W. Bush’s claim to certain “inherent” presidential powers that could not be checked by Congress or the judiciary. After his inauguration, how did President Obama’s constitutional principles fare? That is the question Louis Fisher explores in this book, a disturbing and timely study of the tension between constitutional aspirations and executive actions in the American presidency.

A constitutional scholar, Fisher views Obama’s two terms within the context of other presidencies, and in light of the principles set forth by the Framers. His work reveals how the basic system of checks and balances has been substantially altered by Supreme Court decisions, military initiatives, and scholarship promoting the power of the president—and by presidents progressively more inclined to wield that power. In this analysis we see the steps by which Obama, himself an expert on the Constitution, came to press his agenda more and more aggressively through executive actions: on climate change, renewable energy, the auto industry bail-out, education initiatives, and financial reform. Rather than focus on policy, Fisher examines the politics and practical concerns that drive executive overreach, as well as the impact of such expanded powers on bipartisan support, public understanding, and finally, the functioning of government.

A fair but critical assessment of Obama’s executive performance and legacy, this sobering book documents the erosion of constitutional principles that prepared the way for the presidency of Donald Trump.

Federal judges, legal scholars, pundits, and reporters frequently describe the Supreme Court as the final word on the meaning of the Constitution. The historical record presents an entirely different picture. A close and revealing reading of that record, from 1789 to the present day, Reconsidering Judicial Finality reminds us of the “unalterable fact,” as Chief Justice Rehnquist once remarked, “that our judicial system, like the human beings who administer it, is fallible.” And a Court inevitably prone to miscalculation and error, as this book clearly demonstrates, cannot have the incontrovertible last word on constitutional questions.

In this deeply researched, sharply reasoned work of legal myth-busting, constitutional scholar Louis Fisher explains how constitutional disputes are settled by all three branches of government, and by the general public, with the Supreme Court often playing a secondary role. The Court’s decisions have, of course, been challenged and reversed in numerous cases—involving slavery, civil rights, child labor legislation, Japanese internment during World War II, abortion, and religious liberty. What Fisher shows us on a case-by-case basis is how the elected branches, scholars, and American public regularly press policies contrary to Court rulings—and regularly prevail, although the process might sometimes take decades. From the common misreading of Marbury v. Madison, to the mistaken understanding of the Supreme Court as the trusted guardian of individual rights, to the questionable assumptions of the Court’s decision in Citizens United, Fisher’s work charts the distance and the difference between the Court as the ultimate arbiter in constitutional matters and the judgment of history.

The verdict of Reconsidering Judicial Finality is clear: to treat the Supreme Court’s nine justices as democracy’s last hope or as dangerous activists undermining democracy is to vest them with undue significance. The Constitution belongs to all three branches of government—and, finally, to the American people.

When a B-29 bomber exploded over Georgia in 1948, the victims’ families were denied access to crucial information relating to the accident because the federal government claimed such access would endanger national security. When the Supreme Court upheld that claim in United States v. Reynolds (1953), a new precedent was established, allowing the executive branch to assert an all-encompassing “state secret privilege” as a basis for withholding information from public scrutiny.

For more than fifty years that decision has been viewed with apprehension by a great many scholars and citizens, who feel it has fostered a dangerous cult of secrecy and undermined accountability by declaring that only the executive branch can be trusted with sensitive material. Now Louis Fisher, America’s leading authority on separation of powers, recounts the story of Reynolds to reassess its lasting impact on our society.

Taking us back to a time when Americans were preoccupied with protecting military secrets from the Red Menace, Fisher shows how this case produced fundamental distortions in the judicial process that have increased with each passing year. He critiques the government’s arguments in Reynolds from district court to Supreme Court and dissects the landmark opinion authored by Chief Justice Fred Vinson. He also explains how Reynolds affected subsequent battles over executive-held information both within the courts—the Pentagon Papers, the Watergate tapes—and between Congress and the president, as exemplified by the Freedom of Information Act and the much-debated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Drawing upon declassified documents and interviews with surviving family members, he weaves a compelling story—one that took a new twist when it was finally discovered that the information originally withheld was not sensitive at all but rather revealed Air Force negligence.

Especially in light of the Bush administration’s continued use of Reynolds to justify its post-9/11 claims to unilateral authority, Fisher''s work could not be more timely. His book is essential reading for all who question presidential authority—and should be required reading for all who don’t.