Casey B. K. Dominguez, "Commander in Chief: Partisanship, Nationalism, and the Reconstruction of Congressional War Powers" (UP of Kansas, 2024)

episode

New Books in Political Science not yet transcribed

▲ 0

Transcript

This episode hasn't been transcribed yet Upvotes decide what gets transcribed next — 0 so far. Sign in to upvote

More from New Books in Political Science

Voices from North Korea: Refugees Tell Their Stories 39 min · 08 Sep 2026

Kwame Nkrumah and Pan-Africanism’s High Tide: A Conversation with Howard W. French 48 min · 20 Dec 2025

All episodes from New Books in Political Science →

Report any issue

Source

Recorded09 Dec 2024

Publisherfeeds.megaphone.fm

Handlerec:5404419

Show notes

The balance of power between the United States Congress and the president is particularly contested when it comes to war powers. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war but Article II Section 2 declares that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Today, presidents broadly define their constitutional authority as commander in chief. But in the nineteenth century, Congress claimed and defended expansive war powers authority. How did Congress define the boundaries between presidential and congressional war powers in the early republic? Did the definition of “commander in chief” change, and if so, when, how, and why did it do so? Based on an original, comprehensive dataset of every congressional reference to the commander-in-chief clause from the ratification of the Constitution through 1917, Dr. Casey B.K. Dominguez analyzes the authority that members of Congress ascribed to the president as commander in chief and the boundaries they put around that authority. In Commander in Chief: Partisanship, Nationalism, and the Reconstruction of Congressional War Powers (University Press of Kansas, 2024) Dominguez shows that for more than a century members of Congress defined the commander in chief's authority narrowly, similar to that of any high-ranking military officer. But in a wave of nationalism during the Spanish-American War, members of Congress began to argue that Congress owed deference to the commander in chief – as a national representative of the military, nation, and flag rather than a military officer. These debates were partisan with members of Congress arguing for broader presidential war powers when the president was from their own party. Scholars often assume that it is the Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution but Dominguez’s work shows how all the branches interpret the constitution. She offers particularly keen insights on the use of constitutional stories or scripts about the commander in chief clause. While scholars have assumed that the expansion of presidential war powers happened in the middle of the 20th century, Dominguez’s research shows that the dynamical expansion began 50 years earlier. Her work helps readers understand when – and how – the United States shifted many military decisions to the president. Dr. Casey B. K. Dominguez is professor of Political Science and International Relations at the University of San Diego. Her research focuses on the relationships between political parties and interest groups, and on the evolution of Constitutional war powers in the United States. I’m delighted to welcome her to New Books in Political Science. Mentioned: Victoria A. Farrar-Myers’s book on constitutional scripts, Scripted for Change The Institutionalization of the American Presidency (Texas A&M Press, 2007) Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations (1758) Mariah Zeisberg’s War Powers: The Politics of Constitutional Authority (Princeton 2013) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.