Permanent State of Emergency : Unchecked Executive Power and the Demise of the Rule of Law

The minimum requirements of the rule of law -- The historical development of the rule of law in the United States -- Overbroad authority given to and appropriated by the executive after the 9/11 attacks -- The response of the judiciary to executive overreaching, 2003-12 -- Judicial selection and executive branch dominance -- Congress's failure to exercise oversight.;"After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the US launched several initiatives that are either at the outermost limit of what international human rights law allows or over that limit. These involved systematic violations of non-derogable rights like the right not to be killed without due process, not to be subjected to indefinite arbitrary detention, and not to be tortured. The President of the United States now signs unreviewable death warrants authorizing drone strikes against the nation's citizens; Congress and the courts have declined to review these decisions or curtail this practice, setting a precedent for executive immunity. Do these violations of constitutional law signify a qualitative transformation of the legal order of the United States? Should one seek to answer this question, is it possible to create objective criteria for a mode of constitutional governance? Is it possible to use these criteria to judge whether a nation can be properly considered a rule of law state? This book answers all these questions in the affirmative. The Demise of the Rule of Law in the United States details the long-term consequences of the acceptance of these assertions of executive supremacy: it demonstrates that currently, no branch of government is committed to restraining any presidential administration within the boundaries of the rule of law. The book distinguishes itself from other accounts of the degeneration of constitutional governance during the same period by using an operationalized version of the rule of law as its template for nonconformity. As the book also demonstrates that the minimum norms of the rule of law are embedded within the Constitution of the United States, the conclusion about the effects of the emergency on its constitutional order has considerably more rhetorical force than other scholarly critiques."-- "After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the US launched several initiatives that are either at the outermost limit of what international human rights law allows or over that limit. These involved systematic violations of non-derogable rights like the right not to be killed without due process, not to be subjected to indefinite arbitrary detention, and not to be tortured. The President of the United States now signs unreviewable death warrants authorizing drone strikes against the nation's citizens; Congress and the courts have declined to review these decisions or curtail this practice, setting a precedent for executive immunity. Do these violations of constitutional law signify a qualitative transformation of the legal order of the United States? Should one seek to answer this question, is it possible to create objective criteria for a mode of constitutional governance? Is it possible to use these criteria to judge whether a nation can be properly considered a rule of law state? This book answers all these questions in the affirmative. The Demise of the Rule of Law in the United States details the long-term consequences of the acceptance of these assertions of executive supremacy: it demonstrates that currently, no branch of government is committed to restraining any presidential administration within the boundaries of the rule of law. The book distinguishes itself from other accounts of the degeneration of constitutional governance during the same period by using an operationalized version of the rule of law as its template for nonconformity. As the book also demonstrates that the minimum norms of the rule of law are embedded within the Constitution of the United States, the conclusion about the effects of the emergency on its constitutional order has considerably more rhetorical force than other scholarly critiques."-- Provided by publisher "After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the US launched several initiatives that are either at the outermost limit of what international human rights law allows or over that limit. These involved systematic violations of non-derogable rights like the right not to be killed without due process, not to be subjected to indefinite arbitrary detention, and not to be tortured. The President of the United States now signs unreviewable death warrants authorizing drone strikes against the nation's citizens; Congress and the courts have declined to review these decisions or curtail this practice, setting a precedent for executive immunity. Do these violations of constitutional law signify a qualitative transformation of the legal order of the United States? Should one seek to answer this question, is it possible to create objective criteria for a mode of constitutional governance? Is it possible to use these criteria to judge whether a nation can be properly considered a rule of law state? This book answers all these questions in the affirmative. The Demise of the Rule of Law in the United States details the long-term consequences of the acceptance of these assertions of executive supremacy: it demonstrates that currently, no branch of government is committed to restraining any presidential administration within the boundaries of the rule of law. The book distinguishes itself from other accounts of the degeneration of constitutional governance during the same period by using an operationalized version of the rule of law as its template for nonconformity. As the book also demonstrates that the minimum norms of the rule of law are embedded within the Constitution of the United States, the conclusion about the effects of the emergency on its constitutional order has considerably more rhetorical force than other scholarly critiques."-- Résumé de l'éditeur "After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the US launched several initiatives that are either at the outermost limit of what international human rights law allows or over that limit. These involved systematic violations of non-derogable rights like the right not to be killed without due process, not to be subjected to indefinite arbitrary detention, and not to be tortured. The President of the United States now signs unreviewable death warrants authorizing drone strikes against the nation's citizens; Congress and the courts have declined to review these decisions or curtail this practice, setting a precedent for executive immunity. Do these violations of constitutional law signify a qualitative transformation of the legal order of the United States? Should one seek to answer this question, is it possible to create objective criteria for a mode of constitutional governance? Is it possible to use these criteria to judge whether a nation can be properly considered a rule of law state? This book answers all these questions in the affirmative. It details the long term consequences of the acceptance of these assertions of executive supremacy: it demonstrates that currently, no branch of government is committed to restraining any presidential administration within the boundaries of the rule of law. The book distinguishes itself from other accounts of the degeneration of constitutional governance during the same period by using an operationalized version of the rule of law as its template for nonconformity. As the book also demonstrates that the minimum norms of the rule of law are embedded within the Constitution of the United States, the conclusion about the effects of the emergency on its constitutional order has considerably more rhetorical force than other scholarly critiques"--Provided by the publisher In the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States launched initiatives that test the limits of international human rights law. The indefinite detention and torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, targeted killing, and mass surveillance require an expansion of executive authority that negates the rule of law. In Permanent State of Emergency, Ryan Alford establishes that the ongoing failure to address human rights abuses is a symptom of the most serious constitutional crisis in American history. Instead of curbing the increase in executive power, Congress and the courts facilitated the breakdown of the nation s constitutional order and set the stage for presidential supremacy. The presidency, Alford argues, is now more than imperial: it is an elective dictatorship. Providing both an overview and a systematic analysis of the new regime, he objectively demonstrates that it does not meet even the minimum requirements of the rule of law. At this critical juncture in American democracy, Permanent State of Emergency alerts the public to the structural transformation of the state and reiterates the importance of the constitutional limits of the American presidency." In the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States launched initiatives that test the limits of international human rights law. The indefinite detention and torture of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, targeted killing, and mass surveillance require an expansion of executive authority that negates the rule of law. In Permanent State of Emergency, Ryan Alford establishes that the ongoing failure to address human rights abuses is a symptom of the most serious constitutional crisis in American history. Instead of curbing the increase in executive power, Congress and the courts facilitated the breakdown of the nation's constitutional order and set the stage for presidential supremacy. The presidency, Alford argues, is now more than imperial: it is an elective dictatorship. Providing both an overview and a systematic analysis of the new regime, he objectively demonstrates that it does not meet even the minimum requirements of the rule of law. At this critical juncture in American democracy, Permanent State of Emergency alerts the public to the structural transformation of the state and reiterates the importance of the constitutional limits of the American presidency. An objective and unflinching analysis of the destruction of America’s constitutional order and the creation of an elective dictatorship. An objective and unflinching analysis of the destruction of America’s constitutional order and the creation of an elective dictatorship.