MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996270701

Restoring the Balance: War Powers in an Age of Terror

2009· article· en· W6996270701 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSound Ideas (University of Puget Sound) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTorture, Ethics, and Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatureJust war theoryPresidential systemPower (physics)Spanish Civil WarPoliticsInherent powersTerrorismState (computer science)National securityDecolonization
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United States' War on Terror lacks identifiable enemies and obvious front lines. It is fought on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan by conventional military forces, in the deserts of Yemen and mountains of Pakistan by Special Operations forces, in the detention centers of Guanta?namo Bay by lawyers, and on the domestic front by intelligence agencies. The tools used in this amorphous war have raised questions concerning the nature and scope of executive power, as well as about broader constitutional issues regarding the balance of presidential and legislative war powers. Given the distinctive and potentially endless nature of the War on Terror, it is vitally important to clarify and resolve these issues. Restoring the Balance: War Powers in an Age of Terror advances a theory of war powers that provides a framework for the effective and efficient conduct of the War on Terror. It argues that the constitutional grant of the power to declare war accorded Congress should be understood as the power to give the president extraordinary domestic legislative authority in order to defend the nation. In the absence of a declaration of war, then, Congress's legislative power provides a meaningful check on the ability of the president to alter domestic laws. Restoring the Balance challenges the conventional arguments on both sides of the debate over war powers, using constitutional theory, case law, and political precedent to provide a pragmatic, policy-based theory on the question of war powers in the age of international terror. Casting the "declare war" clause in a new light, it develops an original constitutional interpretation of the appropriate balance between presidential and congressional war powers. Author Seth Weinberger advances a novel understanding of the power to declare war, arguing that the president has broad inherent constitutional powers to deploy U.S. armed forces abroad without specific authorization from Congress. However, without such authorization the president is limited when taking actions that affect the legal status of persons within the United States itself. In short, Restoring the Balance demands that Congress recognize its constitutionally endowed responsibility and take a more substantial role in protecting domestic civil liberties and the fragile balance created by the Constitution.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.039
Scholarly communication0.0130.033
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSound Ideas (University of Puget Sound)Same topicTorture, Ethics, and LawFrench-language works237,207