Author: Matthew Pinsker

US Constitution

On January 20, 2017

“Foreign policy issues played a major role in calling the convention and would be important in the deliberations themselves. The fundamental question of the foreign policy powers to be assigned to each branch of government created ambiguities that have vexed the republic ever since.” –George Herring, From Colony to Superpower, p. 51

Additional Resources

One of the best online resources for studying the U.S. Constitution comes from the University of Chicago and its online edition of the Founder’s Constitution. See the main Table of Contents for a general overview to their fine annotated, clause-by-clause presentation.

Students in History 282 should be especially familiar with these clauses:

Debating War Powers

By Matthew Pinsker

On January 15, 2017

In Syllabus

Debates over presidential war powers are as old as the making of the Constitution itself. The Founders debated the issue in the summer of 1787, on Friday, August 17th. Even then, the issue could provoke fierce moral outrage. Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, remarked in astonishment during the argument that he had “never expected to hear, in a republic, a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.” The Founders voted instead to vest the authority in Congress, but even so, Gerry was not satisfied and ultimately refused to sign the document.

Those who did sign the Constitution and especially those who defended it during the ratification debates in 1787 and 1788 often proved themselves to be quite pragmatic (and thus elusive) about this and other related issues. James Madison actually argued in Federalist No. 41 that when it comes to national security, “The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack.” But Madison still believed that forward-leaning attitude could be reconciled with sound republican principles.

Modern-day opinion writers have continued to try to split these differences –but the arguments have been no less fierce. Bush Administration and constitutional scholar John Yoo argued for an expansive reading of war powers in the post 9/11 era in his 2006 op-ed for the New York Times, How the Presidency Regained Its Balance.” Yoo’s defense of torture and other claims about presidential power have provoked bitter denunciations, however, especially from historians like Bruce Ackerman. Yet Ackerman, in particular, has not limited his fire to Republican administrations. In 2014, the noted Yale scholar blasted President Obama for his sometimes conflicted behavior as commander in chief, arguing in the New York Times op-ed pages against what he termed, “Obama’s Betrayal of the Constitution.” Prof. Pinsker tried to forge what he considered to be a common sense alternative, based on Lincoln’s example, in a 2013 op-ed for USA Today, “Obama Fails Lincoln Lesson on Syria.”

As the next administration begins and as the challenges of a troubled world continue, the debate endures. What is your position?

Toward an Imperial Presidency

By Matthew Pinsker

On December 2, 2014

In Uncategorized

White House foreign policy decision-making during the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon era took a decided turn toward centralization. There had always been occasional tensions between presidents and their diplomats, but George Herring’s survey From Colony to Superpower demonstrates clearly that something intensified during that latter stages of the Cold War. Students in History 282 who are interested in the executive decision-making process should read chapters 16-17 carefully and try listening to the audio recordings of the various administrations to discern for themselves what was occurring in the 1960s and 1970s.

Cuban Missile Crisis (ExComm) (October 1962)

LBJ and Robert McNamara on Vietnam (March 1964)

LBJ and Sen. Richard Russell (May 1964)

Nixon and Kissinger

Research Guide to The Rosenberg Case

By Matthew Pinsker

On November 13, 2014

In Rosenberg

The story of the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg might well be the most dramatic in the history of US national security. It involves so much –atomic weapons, espionage, treason, blackmail, high stakes legal drama, ethnic loyalties, political beliefs, family betrayal, marriage, friendship, and ultimately, death. Students in History 282 will be viewing a gripping documentary about the case by the Rosenberg’s granddaughter, Ivy Meer0pol. “Heir to an Execution” (2004) provides a unique insider’s view of the story, showing the filmmaker as she tries to come to terms with the legacy of the case for her own, broken family. They will then use the film to inspire their own reflections on the challenges of balancing liberty with security in age of almost perpetual war.

The Soviet Union detonated their first successful atomic bomb test in August 1949. Within a year, federal authorities in New York arrested Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. They stood trial in 1951, accused of conspiring to steal atomic weapons secrets from the US Army during World War II and sharing them with Soviet intelligence operatives. They were convicted of espionage and sentenced to death. The lengthy appeal of their case transfixed the world, but ultimately the Rosenbergs were executed on June 19, 1953.

Here are some helpful resources on this all-important episode:

The Trial of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg (wide array of resources from Douglas Linder, Famous Trials Project, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)

FBI Records on the Atom Spy Case (read the now declassified case files straight from the G-men files)

New York Times coverage (1951-2014), including these highlights:

—3 IN ATOM SPY CASE ARE FOUND GUILTY; MAXIMUM IS DEATH (March 30, 1951)

—US Tells How It Cracked Code of A-Bomb Spy Ring (July 12, 1995)

–REVIEW: Capturing the Rosenbergs (June 13, 2004)

—Father Was a Spy, Sons Conclude With Regret (September 16, 2008)

—David Greenglass, the Brother Who Doomed Ethel Rosenberg, Dies at 92 (October 14, 2014)

There has also been some excellent coverage of this case over the years from the Los Angeles Times:

–Robert & Michael Meeropol, Essential Lessons of the Rosenberg Case (Oct. 5, 2008)

–(Profile of Miriam Moskowitz), 64 Years Later, a Battle to Erase a McCarthy-Era Conviction (November 25, 2014)

Google Hangout With Terrorism Experts

By Matthew Pinsker

On October 7, 2014

In Uncategorized

The New America Foundation in Washington DC is hosting a Google Hangout on the ISIS threat with terrorism experts, Douglas Olivant and Brian Fishman. The discussion will be live online on Wednesday, October 8, 2014 from 2:30pm to 3pm and then archived at YouTube. Students in History 282 are invited both participate and / or to submit questions in advance of the session. Here is a message from the NAF social media coordinator, Justin Lynch:

“Hey everyone, my name is Justin Lynch. I work as the Social Media Coordinator at New America, a think tank in DC. On Wednesday, we will be hosting a Google Hangout on where the war against ISIS could go with two experts, Douglas Ollivant and Brian Fishman. Part of why we are doing this is to give students a chance to ask experts questions. We will focus on questions of civil liberties during the debate, and I reach out and ask if you had any questions you’d like to ask during our event. We will try and get all of the questions in, and even if you can’t make it, the event will be saved on YouTube and we will bookmark where questions are asked.If you have a question for Doug or Brian on ISIS as it relates to civil liberties, or just ISIS in general, email me at lynch@newamerica.org, and I will ask it. Thanks!”