Major John Dehn, a member of the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps and author of articles on international law, visited Hamilton for a lecture on March 6.
Using the United States Constitution as framework for his discussion, Major Dehn posed a controversial question that is currently facing United States political and military leaders: Who is in charge of the military, and who sets the rules? Although the answer seems to be written in the Constitution, Major Dehn explained that misinterpretation of the Constitution's War Powers Act often leads to conflict between the legislative and executive branches in regard to war and the commandment of the army that can result in mixed orders. According to Major Dehn, this misinterpretation poses an even more vital question that constituted the basis of his discussion: How does the military decide what is lawful?
Major Dehn began his discussion with the Authorization of the Use of Military Force written into the Constitution on September 18th, 2007, which outlines the President's powers to take any action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States. Under this article, the President has the power to declare war on any state, person or organizations that he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. In regard to this power, Major Dehn questioned as to why the President needs to be so authorized if the extent of his war power is already so broad. This key point leads to a series of complex questions that have arisen between the power of Executive and Legislature, and the military's role in that triangle.
As written in Constitution Corner at The United States Military Academy, Major Dehn relayed that it is the duty of the military to obey the law. However, what happens when that law is unclear? Major Dehn went on to further explain exactly how these laws can become unclear by pointing to Theories of Relative Power in Congress and of the president as written in the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton. These examples pointed to two major theories: That the president is commander in chief of the military and can order the military in a way that is "tactical," and that Congress makes the rules for the government which the president must abide by. However, as Major Dehn pointed out, often the branches act outside of their authority. He pointed to examples of past Supreme Court cases including the 1804 case Barreme v. Little in which the President acted outside his authority during wartime and was therefore found to violate the law of Congress. The Iran-Contra affair was another example in which members of the executive branch funded rebels in Nicaragua by selling arms to Iran. In cases such as these, whose command does the military follow? And is the military an independent enforcer of the Constitution?
Major Dehn pointed out that the very nature of war itself has changed. No longer are wars between nations, but between militaries. War itself, he noted, increases executive power as the president is commander-in-chief of the military. In closing, he outlined a possible quandary the military could encounter given current inherent legal and Constitutional ambiguities. If a President were to issue an unlawful action, but the Congress didn't move to impeach him or her, what should the military be expected to do?
Major Dehn and Frank Anechiarico, the Maynard-Knox Professor of Government and Law, are currently collaborating on a paper addressing issues related to the privatizing of military operations.
While he is a recognized authority in this field, Major Dehn's views are not those of the U.S. government or any department or agency thereof. Dehn is currently a candidate for a master's degree in law at Columbia Law School. He received a bachelor's degree from the U.S. Military Academy, a law degree with highest honors from the University of Oklahoma College of Law and an LL.M. in military law from the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's School.
-- by Danielle Raulli '10
Using the United States Constitution as framework for his discussion, Major Dehn posed a controversial question that is currently facing United States political and military leaders: Who is in charge of the military, and who sets the rules? Although the answer seems to be written in the Constitution, Major Dehn explained that misinterpretation of the Constitution's War Powers Act often leads to conflict between the legislative and executive branches in regard to war and the commandment of the army that can result in mixed orders. According to Major Dehn, this misinterpretation poses an even more vital question that constituted the basis of his discussion: How does the military decide what is lawful?
Major Dehn began his discussion with the Authorization of the Use of Military Force written into the Constitution on September 18th, 2007, which outlines the President's powers to take any action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States. Under this article, the President has the power to declare war on any state, person or organizations that he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. In regard to this power, Major Dehn questioned as to why the President needs to be so authorized if the extent of his war power is already so broad. This key point leads to a series of complex questions that have arisen between the power of Executive and Legislature, and the military's role in that triangle.
As written in Constitution Corner at The United States Military Academy, Major Dehn relayed that it is the duty of the military to obey the law. However, what happens when that law is unclear? Major Dehn went on to further explain exactly how these laws can become unclear by pointing to Theories of Relative Power in Congress and of the president as written in the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton. These examples pointed to two major theories: That the president is commander in chief of the military and can order the military in a way that is "tactical," and that Congress makes the rules for the government which the president must abide by. However, as Major Dehn pointed out, often the branches act outside of their authority. He pointed to examples of past Supreme Court cases including the 1804 case Barreme v. Little in which the President acted outside his authority during wartime and was therefore found to violate the law of Congress. The Iran-Contra affair was another example in which members of the executive branch funded rebels in Nicaragua by selling arms to Iran. In cases such as these, whose command does the military follow? And is the military an independent enforcer of the Constitution?
Major Dehn pointed out that the very nature of war itself has changed. No longer are wars between nations, but between militaries. War itself, he noted, increases executive power as the president is commander-in-chief of the military. In closing, he outlined a possible quandary the military could encounter given current inherent legal and Constitutional ambiguities. If a President were to issue an unlawful action, but the Congress didn't move to impeach him or her, what should the military be expected to do?
Major Dehn and Frank Anechiarico, the Maynard-Knox Professor of Government and Law, are currently collaborating on a paper addressing issues related to the privatizing of military operations.
While he is a recognized authority in this field, Major Dehn's views are not those of the U.S. government or any department or agency thereof. Dehn is currently a candidate for a master's degree in law at Columbia Law School. He received a bachelor's degree from the U.S. Military Academy, a law degree with highest honors from the University of Oklahoma College of Law and an LL.M. in military law from the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's School.
-- by Danielle Raulli '10
