Two Views of Presidential Foreign Affairs Power: Little v. Barreme or Curtiss-Wright?

16 Pages Posted: 21 Jun 2015

See all articles by Michael J. Glennon

Michael J. Glennon

Tufts University - The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy

Date Written: June 19, 1988

Abstract

In the realm of foreign affairs, an executive order issued in the face of congressional disapproval is presumptively invalid. This is the teaching of Little v. Barreme (1805), which, read in conjunction with the Steel Seizure Case (1952), provides a sounder framework for the resolution of foreign affairs disputes than does United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936).

Keywords: Presidency, foreign relations, Constitution, war power, Little v. Barreme, Curtiss-Wright, Supreme Court, Zivotofsky, Congress, Marshall, Sutherland

Suggested Citation

Glennon, Michael J., Two Views of Presidential Foreign Affairs Power: Little v. Barreme or Curtiss-Wright? (June 19, 1988). Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 13, No. 5, 1988, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2620803

Michael J. Glennon (Contact Author)

Tufts University - The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy ( email )

Medford, MA 02155
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
92
Abstract Views
627
rank
358,173
PlumX Metrics