When private detective Dana Cutler is hired to follow college student Charlotte Walsh, she never imagines the trail will lead to the White House. But the morning after Walsh's clandestine meeting with Christopher Farrington, President of the United States, the pretty young coed is dead—the latest victim, apparently, of a fiend dubbed "the D.C. Ripper." A junior associate in an Oregon law firm, Brad Miller is stunned by the death row revelations of convicted serial killer Clarence Little. Though Little accepts responsibility for a string of gruesome murders, he swears he was framed for one of them: the death of a teenaged babysitter who worked for then-governor Farrington. Suddenly nowhere in America is safe for a small-time private eye and a fledgling lawyer who possess terrifying evidence that suggests the unthinkable: that someone at the very highest level of government, perhaps the president himself, is a cold and brutal killer.
The George W. Bush administration’s ambitious—even breathtaking—claims of unilateral executive authority raised deep concerns among constitutional scholars, civil libertarians, and ordinary citizens alike. But Bush’s attempts to assert his power are only the culmination of a near-thirty-year assault on the basic checks and balances of the U.S. government—a battle waged by presidents of both parties, and one that, as Peter M. Shane warns in Madison’s Nightmare, threatens to utterly subvert the founders’ vision of representative government. Tracing this tendency back to the first Reagan administration, Shane shows how this era of "aggressive presidentialism" has seen presidents exerting ever more control over nearly every arena of policy, from military affairs and national security to domestic programs. Driven by political ambition and a growing culture of entitlement in the executive branch—and abetted by a complaisant Congress, riven by partisanship—this presidential aggrandizement has too often undermined wise policy making and led to shallow, ideological, and sometimes outright lawless decisions. The solution, Shane argues, will require a multipronged program of reform, including both specific changes in government practice and broader institutional changes aimed at supporting a renewed culture of government accountability. From the war on science to the mismanaged war on terror, Madison’s Nightmare outlines the disastrous consequences of the unchecked executive—and issues a stern wake-up call to all who care about the fate of our long democratic experiment.
"When President Jenner's confidential log is leaked to the Washington Post, the nation's capital begins to buzz. Why is the President spending so much time with a White House staffer who also happens to be a psychiatrist? For Newstime magazine's White House reporters Rudy Dodman and Sarah Hoff-and for the rest of the national media-the Post story sparks an examination of the the President's activities unparalleled since Watergate. Working against the clock and against their fellow reporters, Dodman and Hoff quickly find themselves entangled in a complex political crisis involving members of the press and the highest Washington officials, including: President Zern Jenner, the man from Montana, determined to stop the stories about the White House log without delay-even if it means lying to the American people; Nicholas Frye, the unscrupulous Post reporter, who would betray anyone, do anything, for a story; Vice-President Robert Boyston, whose own popular support swells as the President's emotional stability is questioned; Mary Jenner, the President's wife, a woman of intense tenacity and self-control, who refuses to admit to any weakness; Allen Crawford, the obsequious White House staffer, who uses the power of the Presidency to pursue his private passions; Jane Minnick, "Crazy Jane," a paranoid reporter who finds herself in the middle of a power struggle she doesn't understand; Malcolm Ewing, the missing White House staffer-is he merely a loyal aide, or the President's analyst? Dodman and Hoff's investigation takes them to the heart of a major government cover-up, and brings the country to the brink of an international crisis-forcing the two reporters to face questions that have become increasing difficult for today's press corps. Does the people's right to know always come before a public figure's right to privacy? Should the Chief Executive be able to declare some areas that might influence national policy "privileged"? Dodman's life is further complicated by his growing feelings for Sarah, as he also has an old-fashioned sense of responsibility to his wife and child that is rare in the social whirl of the capital."--Jacket.
Drawing on White House and congressional documents as well as on personal interviews, Mark Rozell provides both a historical overview of executive privilege and an explanation of its importance in the political process. He argues for a return to a pre-Watergate understanding of the role of executive privilege.
A presidential scandal that rocked the country resulted in this landmark Supreme Court case on the issue of executive power. When it was discovered that President Richard Nixon kept audio tapes of all conversations conducted in the Oval Office, prosecutors subpoenaed those tapes to prove that the President and his aides were abusing their power. United States v. Nixon is the stunning account of how Nixon's unwillingness to comply eventually led to the involvement of the Supreme Court, who unanimously decided that the president of the United States does not have absolute power. This volume's expert writing and robust design capture the tense atmosphere surrounding this historic decision, which eventually led to Nixon's resignation in August 1974.
Vital perspectives for the divided Trump era on what the Constitution's framers intended when they defined the extent—and limits—of presidential power One of the most vexing questions for the framers of the Constitution was how to create a vigorous and independent executive without making him king. In today's divided public square, presidential power has never been more contested. The President Who Would Not Be King cuts through the partisan rancor to reveal what the Constitution really tells us about the powers of the president. Michael McConnell provides a comprehensive account of the drafting of presidential powers. Because the framers met behind closed doors and left no records of their deliberations, close attention must be given to their successive drafts. McConnell shows how the framers worked from a mental list of the powers of the British monarch, and consciously decided which powers to strip from the presidency to avoid tyranny. He examines each of these powers in turn, explaining how they were understood at the time of the founding, and goes on to provide a framework for evaluating separation of powers claims, distinguishing between powers that are subject to congressional control and those in which the president has full discretion. Based on the Tanner Lectures at Princeton University, The President Who Would Not Be King restores the original vision of the framers, showing how the Constitution restrains the excesses of an imperial presidency while empowering the executive to govern effectively.
Who controls American immigration policy? The biggest immigration controversies of the last decade have all involved policies produced by the President policies such as President Obama's decision to protect Dreamers from deportation and President Trump's proclamation banning immigrants from several majority-Muslim nations. While critics of these policies have been separated by a vast ideological chasm, their broadsides have embodied the same widely shared belief: that Congress, not the President, ought to dictate who may come to the United States and who will be forced to leave. This belief is a myth. In The President and Immigration Law, Adam B. Cox and Cristina M. Rodríguez chronicle the untold story of how, over the course of two centuries, the President became our immigration policymaker-in-chief. Diving deep into the history of American immigration policy from founding-era disputes over deporting sympathizers with France to contemporary debates about asylum-seekers at the Southern border they show how migration crises, real or imagined, have empowered presidents. Far more importantly, they also uncover how the Executive's ordinary power to decide when to enforce the law, and against whom, has become an extraordinarily powerful vehicle for making immigration policy. This pathbreaking account helps us understand how the United States ?has come to run an enormous shadow immigration system-one in which nearly half of all noncitizens in the country are living in violation of the law. It also provides a blueprint for reform, one that accepts rather than laments the role the President plays in shaping the national community, while also outlining strategies to curb the abuse of law enforcement authority in immigration and beyond.
“I have an Article II,” Donald Trump has announced, citing the US Constitution, “where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” Though this statement would have come as a shock to the framers of the Constitution, it fairly sums up the essence of “the unitary executive theory.” This theory, which emerged during the Reagan administration and gathered strength with every subsequent presidency, counters the system of checks and balances that constrains a president’s executive impulses. It also, the authors of this book contend, counters the letter and spirit of the Constitution. In their account of the rise of unitary executive theory over the last several decades, the authors refute the notion that this overweening view of executive power has been a common feature of the presidency from the beginning of the Republic. Rather, they show, it was invented under the Reagan Administration, got a boost during the George W. Bush administration, and has found its logical extension in the Trump administration. This critique of the unitary executive theory reveals it as a misguided model for understanding presidential powers. While its adherents argue that greater presidential power makes government more efficient, the results have shown otherwise. Dismantling the myth that presidents enjoy unchecked plenary powers, the authors advocate for principles of separation of powers—of checks and balances—that honor the Constitution and support the republican government its framers envisioned. A much-needed primer on presidential power, from the nation’s founding through Donald Trump’s impeachment, The Unitary Executive Theory: A Danger to Constitutional Government makes a robust and persuasive case for a return to our constitutional limits.