What Was the Founders' Design for National Security Beyond the Battlefield?

In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.

In Federalist 23, Alexander Hamilton identified the common defense and the preservation of peace against external attacks as two of the principal purposes served by union. The Constitution that union adopted divides the power to declare war—vested in Congress—and the power to direct war—vested in the President as Commander in Chief. But what does it say about national security more broadly? The Founders were not without reservation about the risks of concentrating the means of defense, with James Madison warning the Constitutional Convention that a “standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.” It was also clear from the start, however, that functions like intelligence gathering belonged more naturally to the executive, whose institutional character supported the necessary secrecy and dispatch.

This webinar will explore how the Founders understood national security power beyond the battlefield, how closely subsequent practice tracked their design, and whether today’s allocation of powers serves both the nation's security and its liberty.

Featuring:

• Dr. Alberto Coll, Director, Global Engagement; Vincent de Paul Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law
• Prof. Matthew Waxman, Liviu Librescu Professor of Law, Columbia School of Law
• Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Senior Research Fellow, School of Civic Leadership, Civitas Institute, University of Texas at Austin; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
• (Moderator) Molly Nixon, Senior Fellow in Executive Power, Cato Institute

   

*******

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.