voice for democracy

Prof. Daniel Farber (Berkeley) Guest-Blogging on His Contested Ground: How to Understand the Limits of Presidential Power – Reason

You are now logged in.
Forgot your password?
Create new account
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Presidential Power
| 10.4.2021 11:55 AM
I’m delighted to report that Prof. Daniel Farber, one of the top constitutional scholars in the country, will be guest-blogging this week about his new book:

Here’s the publisher’s summary:
The Trump presidency was not the first to spark contentious debates about presidential power, but its impact on these debates will reverberate far beyond his term. The same rules must apply to all presidents: those whose abuses of power we fear, as well as those whose exercises of power we applaud. In this brief but wide-ranging guide to the presidency, constitutional law expert Daniel Farber charts the limits of presidential power, from the fierce arguments among the Framers to those raging today. Synthesizing history, politics, and settled law, Contested Ground also helps readers make sense of the gaps and gray areas that fuel such heated disputes about the limits of and checks on presidential authority.
From appointments and removals to wars and emergencies, Contested Ground investigates the clashes between branches of government as well as between presidential power and individual freedom. Importantly, Farber lays out the substance of constitutional law and the way it is entwined with constitutional politics, a relationship that ensures an evolving institution, heavily shaped by the course of history. The nature of the position makes it difficult to strike the right balance between limiting abuse of power and authorizing its exercise as needed. As we reflect on the long-tailed implications of a presidency that tested these limits of power at every turn, Contested Ground will be essential reading well after today’s political climate stabilizes (or doesn’t).
And the blurbs:
“This is a wonderfully readable and insightful book on a topic of enormous importance: the constitutional parameters of presidential power in the United States. Dan Farber expertly guides readers through multiple aspects of the topic, including constitutional text, methods of constitutional interpretation, and the roles played by law, politics, and history. “—Heidi Kitrosser, University of Minnesota Law School
“Farber, one of our nation’s preeminent constitutional scholars, offers a brilliant analysis of the constitutional limits and historical abuses of presidential power—an issue that has tested our democracy from the founding through the Trump era. Addressing such critical issues as foreign affairs, domestic policy, individual rights, and separation of powers, this is an essential work for anyone who wants to understand the central challenges to our democracy past, present, and future.”—Geoffrey R. Stone, University of Chicago Law School
“This book is a master class on the law and politics of presidential powers. Drawing from founding debates, modern political practice, and Supreme Court case law, Farber brings clarity to the boundaries of executive authority. Another home run for Farber.”—Richard Albert, the University of Texas at Austin
“Addressing our national turmoil over the nature, powers, and legitimacy of the presidency, here is an accessible, brilliant, balanced book anyone interested in these questions should want to read.”—Peter L. Strauss, Columbia Law School
“Refreshingly open-minded and comprehensive. Farber writes beautifully and clearly, and he meticulously presents both sides of every issue. I disagree with much of what Farber concludes, but this is a scholarly and timely book!”—Steven Gow Calabresi, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
“Is the President too powerful, or not powerful enough? Dan Farber’s smart, engaging book weaves together law, politics, history, and common sense to give readers, whatever their background, a new way to think about this critical question—one that doesn’t depend on whether we happen to approve of the incumbent.”—David A. Strauss, University of Chicago Law School
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
NEXT: Tenure Rules at the University System of Georgia
Eugene Volokh is the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA. Naturally, his posts here (like the opinions of the other bloggers) are his own, and not endorsed by any educational institution.
Show Comments (3)
Editor’s Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.
My comment was deleted. Why?
Maybe you were mistaken for a liberal or libertarian?
I feel presidential systems produce heavily authoritarian governance with little direct oversight and a nearly impossible hurdle for removing the office-holder. There is truly no legislative accountability and instead the only accountability comes from the electorate. But we all know that in a duopoly such as the US, the choice typically comes down to Dumb vs Dumber and rather than voting FOR ideas and principles, voters tend to votes AGAINST the “other guy”. That means there is no voter accountability for using authoritarian methods but instead fear based on partisanship.
The only thing that could make the system worse is to directly elect the President. A popular mandate gained through direct elections has been demonstrated all over the globe to be a means of negating the legislature of those nations and pushing the presidency into a preeminent position allowing them to run roughshod over the legislature thanks to that popular mandate to power.
Please to post comments
| 10.5.2021 4:00 AM
| 10.4.2021 5:15 PM
| 10.4.2021 5:00 PM
| 10.4.2021 4:20 PM
| 10.4.2021 4:05 PM
© 2021 Reason Foundation | Privacy Policy | Accessibility | Terms Of Use