Bruce Ackerman debates John Yoo over the war powers in today's LA Times, in a series that will continue all week. Why does this remind me of the question of whether to debate Phyllis Schlafley over the ERA (which we seem to be having another round of these days...)? I suppose it must be done.
The Times introduces today's installment this way: How much authority does the Congress have to direct the way a war is waged? John Yoo and Bruce Ackerman debate the wrangling between Congress and the president over wartime authority. Today, Yoo and Ackerman interpret the U.S. Constitution for answers to the struggle between the executive and legislative branches over the conduct of the war in Iraq. Later this week, they'll debate the ongoing use-of-force resolution, the hypocrisy of the left and the right on this issue, the questionable relevance of "letters of marque and reprisal" in the 21st century, and the possibility that there may be more important issues here than constitutional language.
For Ackerman & Yoo, click here. To follow the rest later in the week, go to latimes.com, and click on "opinion."
