Garrison (Kutztown Univ.) provides extensive treatment of the growth of presidential power in foreign affairs and the rise of judicial power to "maintain constitutional boundaries on presidential power." Beginning with President Washington's 1793 statement of neutrality in the British-French conflict, he documents presidential assertions of power resulting in Congress "losing control over war policy." History has sustained Hamilton in his debate with Madison over presidential power that was instigated by this incident. However, Garrison challenges the maxim that courts provide little protection to civil liberties during national security crises. This maxim has largely arisen due to the fact that the Ex Parte Milligan case limited military commissions only after the Civil War, but the Ex Parte Quirin case during WW II affirmed trials by military commissions for US citizens. In the current war on terror, Garrison asserts the judiciary has brought presidential power under the rule of law by requiring a habeas corpus hearing for presidentially declared enemy combatants and judicial review of treaty-based requirements for military commissions trying violations of the laws of war. The book's implicit message is that Hamilton's view of the judiciary as the institution to preserve the rule of law has been sustained. Summing Up: Recommended. Upper-division undergraduate, graduate, and research collections.

Choice Reviews

Arthur A. Garrison’s Supreme Court Jurisprudence in Times of National Crisis, Terrorism, and War is an excellent discussion of the role that the Supreme Court has, does and should play in this important policy space. . . . One of the strengths of the book . . . is that Garrison does not merely focus on the opinion of the Court, but also includes treatment of the dissents and concurrences of important cases. . . .The heart of the book is found in its second half, the focus of which is on the post-September 11 Supreme Court War on Terror jurisprudence. Early in this section, Garrison sets the stage with a detailed look at the legal justifications offered by various presidential administrations in determining the legal capacity of the president to engage in war in Vietnam, react to hostage taking in the U.S. embassy in Iran and events that could lead to deployment of troops without congressional approval. . . .Garrison’s book offers an excellent discussion of the political, philosophical, historical and legal underpinnings of presidential war powers. . . .This is a detailed, important treatment of the players in a key policy space.

Law and Politics Book Review

Supreme Court Jurisprudence in Times of National Crisis, Terrorism, and War is an exhaustive analysis of Supreme Court jurisprudence in time of national security crisis from the founding of the nation to the present time. This encyclopedic book covers familiar and unfamiliar examples alike, freshly and with rigor.

Jack Goldsmith, Henry L. Shattuck Professor, Harvard Law School