All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Schmitt’s Sovereign ‘Exception’, the American Constitution, and Presidential Nuclear Power
Unformatted Document Text:  Introduction Presidential sovereignty over nuclear weapons began with the Manhattan project in 1942 and continues through to the current debate on nuclear modernization today. For this paper, sovereignty is defined as the exclusive control and decision-making authority regarding the strategy, placement, and use (particularly first-use) or non-use of the weapons themselves. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate this insight in such a way as to add complexity to the question of sovereign control in general and to demonstrate how this question is often obfuscated by the contemporary bickering over war powers in the context of September 11 th , 2001. The true measure of Presidential sovereignty is not just the literal control over nuclear weapons, and thus the fate of the world, but the ability implied in this control to decide which situations are appropriately dire such that the President’s authority exceeds the constitutional power to declare War ordinarily granted to the Congress. This exception to the otherwise normal constitutional order is an extreme case, but cannot be disaggregated from the deference to Presidential power in foreign affairs generally. The material context of this power—centralization of nuclear command via technological innovations such as computers and telephony networks, transcontinental deliver vehicles— altered the timeframe for decision-making and decision execution such that war could begin and end in the time it takes to make dinner (even delivery). The brute facts of capability are lost in the debates regarding constitutional authority. As Political Scientist Richard Neustadt said in 1963 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “When it comes to actions risking war, technology has modified the Constitution.” 1 Following this sentiment the ethos of the Cold War was laid out in NSC-68. NSC-68 made clear that the possibility of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe necessitated a President unfettered by review and capable, even if not explicitly authorized, of initiating war in the form of a nuclear first strike. However, this was not merely 1 Arthur Schlesinger Jr., The Imperial President, Boston: Mariner Books, 2004, p. 166. 2

Authors: Grove, Jairus.
first   previous   Page 2 of 40   next   last



background image
Introduction
Presidential sovereignty over nuclear weapons began with the Manhattan project in 1942 and
continues through to the current debate on nuclear modernization today. For this paper,
sovereignty is defined as the exclusive control and decision-making authority regarding the
strategy, placement, and use (particularly first-use) or non-use of the weapons themselves. The
purpose of this paper is to demonstrate this insight in such a way as to add complexity to the
question of sovereign control in general and to demonstrate how this question is often obfuscated
by the contemporary bickering over war powers in the context of September 11
th
, 2001. The true
measure of Presidential sovereignty is not just the literal control over nuclear weapons, and thus
the fate of the world, but the ability implied in this control to decide which situations are
appropriately dire such that the President’s authority exceeds the constitutional power to declare
War ordinarily granted to the Congress. This exception to the otherwise normal constitutional
order is an extreme case, but cannot be disaggregated from the deference to Presidential power in
foreign affairs generally.
The material context of this power—centralization of nuclear command via technological
innovations such as computers and telephony networks, transcontinental deliver vehicles—
altered the timeframe for decision-making and decision execution such that war could begin and
end in the time it takes to make dinner (even delivery). The brute facts of capability are lost in
the debates regarding constitutional authority. As Political Scientist Richard Neustadt said in
1963 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “When it comes to actions risking war,
technology has modified the Constitution.”
Following this sentiment the ethos of the Cold War
was laid out in NSC-68. NSC-68 made clear that the possibility of a Soviet invasion of Western
Europe necessitated a President unfettered by review and capable, even if not explicitly
authorized, of initiating war in the form of a nuclear first strike. However, this was not merely
1
Arthur Schlesinger Jr., The Imperial President, Boston: Mariner Books, 2004, p. 166.
2


Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 2 of 40   next   last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.