Federalism: Deference Meets Delegation: Which Is the Most Dangerous Branch

The following is a transcript of a 2016 Federalist Society panel entitled Federalism: Deference Meets Delegation: Which is the Most Dangerous Branch? The panel originally occurred on November 12, 2015, during the National Lawyers Convention in Washington, D.C. The panelists were: C. Boyden Gray, Attorney at Boyden, Gray and Associates and former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union; David B. Rivkin Jr., Partner at BakerHostetler; Neal K. Katyal, Attorney at Hogan Lovells and former acting U.S. Solicitor General; and John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University School of Law. The moderator was the Honorable Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

Preemption and Law in the Twenty-First Century

No aspect of the Bush Administration\u27s foreign policy has caused greater consternation in Europe, at the United Nations, and among the Academy than the doctrine of preemption. As the President has made clear, both in the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States of America ( NSS ) and in numerous other public statements, the United States claims the legal right to take military action to preempt gathering threats to its national security, with or without the sanction of the UN Security Council. Despite the outraged cries of critics, both at home and abroad, the doctrine of preemptive self-defense is well- grounded in customary international law, fully consonant with the UN Charter, and promises to be an indispensable part of American statecraft in the twenty- first century. [CONT

Preemption and Law in the Twenty-First Century

No aspect of the Bush Administration\u27s foreign policy has caused greater consternation in Europe, at the United Nations, and among the Academy than the doctrine of preemption. As the President has made clear, both in the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States of America ( NSS ) and in numerous other public statements, the United States claims the legal right to take military action to preempt gathering threats to its national security, with or without the sanction of the UN Security Council. Despite the outraged cries of critics, both at home and abroad, the doctrine of preemptive self-defense is well- grounded in customary international law, fully consonant with the UN Charter, and promises to be an indispensable part of American statecraft in the twenty- first century. [CONT

Panel V: Military Comissions

Scott L. Silliman (Duke Law), chair, Louis Fisher (Senior Specialist in Separation of Powers, Library of Congress), John D. Altenburg, Jr., Maj. Gen, USA (Ret.), (Dept. of Defense), Toni Locy (Reporter, USA Today), David B. Rivkin, Jr. (Partner, Baker & Hosteller LLP, Washington DC), panelists