Corpus ID: 51857644

Revisiting Youngstown: Against the View that Jackson's Concurrence Resolves the Relation between Congress and the Commander-in-Chief

@article{Rosen2007RevisitingYA,
  title={Revisiting Youngstown: Against the View that Jackson's Concurrence Resolves the Relation between Congress and the Commander-in-Chief},
  author={Mark D. Rosen},
  journal={UCLA Law Review},
  year={2007},
  volume={54},
  pages={1703}
}
Virtually all legal analysts believe that the tripartite framework from Justice Jackson's Youngstown concurrence provides the correct framework for resolving contests between Congress (when it regulates pursuant to its powers to make rules and regulations for the land and naval forces, for instance) and the president when he acts pursuant to his commander-in-chief powers. This Article identifies a core assumption of the tripartite framework that, up to now, has not been recognized and that… Expand

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 15 REFERENCES
Defending Judicial Supremacy: A Reply
54:6 Rosen Rosen Final 1.doc (7/5/2007 12:11 PM) 54:6 Rosen Rosen Final 1.doc (7/5/2007 12:11 PM) 54:6 Rosen Rosen Final 1.doc (7/5
  • 2007
arguing that "a central moral function of law is to settle what ought to be done" and that this is best effectuated by means of judicial supremacy)
  • CONST. COMMENT
  • 2000
making a similar critique of the Printz v. United States case's adoption of a categorical constitutional rule); see also Mark D. Rosen, Modeling Constitutional Doctrine
  • 1998
deferring to Congress's judgment in the First Amendment context); see also Granfinanciera
  • 1973
...
1
2
...