• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Preserve the Constitution Series: The Constitution and the Common Defense

    Arguably more than any other armed conflict, the events of September 11, 2001, tested the President’s constitutional authority to wage war on behalf of the country. Whether the issue was the capture and treatment of detainees, interrogation techniques, surveillance, the Geneva Conventions, wiretapping, Guantanamo, or the role of the courts during wartime, this conflict unleashed a public debate regarding the role of the President during wartime. Who ensures America’s national security?

    Does the Constitution, as John Yoo argues, give the President “the primary direction of national security decisions, with Congress retaining ample authority to check executive power”? Or, as others have asserted, did the Framers “[intend] Congress to play the predominant role in setting national security and foreign policy and that legislative action invariably overrides presidential decision-making”? And what role, if any, should the courts play in the conduct of national security policy?

    What role does the Attorney General play in interpreting the Constitution and advising the commander in chief during wartime? And has that role evolved over time, and why?

    Join us on October 11 in Washington, D.C., for Heritage’s Preserve the Constitution seriesas we turn our attention to the Constitution and the Common Defense. Don’t miss this opportunity to hear from former U.S. Attorneys General Edwin Meese, John Ashcroft, and Michael Mukasey as they discuss the vital role of the Constitution during armed conflict.

    Posted in First Principles [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Preserve the Constitution Series: The Constitution and the Common Defense

    1. Bobbie says:

      If the president was perfect Yoo's way would suffice. But no human is perfect and this one has an agenda of his own…
      To preserve the Constitution takes proper interpretation and meaningful compliance. This administration runs on their own interpretation, where corrective actions need expediency.

    2. Ron Welch says:

      Constitutional study

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×