Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1995. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 491-501). / Microfiche. / xv, 501 leaves, bound 29 cm

Thesis--Munich. / Issued also, without thesis statement, in 1973 under title: Präsidenten-Krieg in Vietnam? Includes bibliographical references (p. 336-350).

No description available.

This thesis is a study of the formulation of American foreign policy in general terms and specifically how hostility is initiated. War powers and who controls this authority is an age-old question. One can not simply look to the Constitution for direction. An intricate formula is necessary and the evolution of the nation must be understood.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

A presente dissertação trata da relação entre democracia e poderes emergenciais tendo como análise o caso dos Estados Unidos depois dos atentados terroristas de 11 de setembro de 2001. Fundamentalmente, tratamos da expansão dos poderes do presidente norte-americano, George W. Bush, propiciada pela chamada “guerra contra o terrorismo”. Nosso objetivo é o de demonstrar como se deu essa ampliação dos poderes do presidente, tratando especificamente das questões atinentes à Ordem Militar de novembro de 2001 que possibilitou a prisão de suspeitos de terrorismo por parte das forças armadas norte-americanas e seu envio à Base Naval de Guantánamo, Cuba. Além disso, analisamos o comportamento da população, do Legislativo e do Judiciário durante a primeira administração republicana, demonstrando a fragilidade do sistema de checks and balances durantes emergências. Por fim, concluímos que ocorreu, por parte do Executivo, uma interpretação soberana da Constituição e das leis que, com o maciço apoio da população, impôs restrições ao funcionamento dos checks and balances e possibilitou a violação de direitos de cidadãos e estrangeiros, como mostrou o caso dos detentos em Guantánamo e em solo norte-americano. / This dissertation deals with the relationship between democracy and emergency powers, analyzing the case of the United States after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Fundamentally, we study the expansion of the powers of U.S. President George W. Bush, provided by the "war on terror”. Our goal is to demonstrate how did this expansion of presidential powers, dealing specifically with issues related to the Military Order of November 2001 that led to the arrest of suspected terrorists by the armed forces of U.S. and sent to the Naval Base Guantanamo, Cuba. Furthermore, we analyze the behavior of the population, the legislature and the judiciary during the first Republican administration, demonstrating the fragility of the system of checks and balances during emergencies. Finally, we conclude that occurred by the Executive, a sovereign interpretation of the Constitution and laws, with massive popular support, has imposed restrictions on the operation of checks and balances and the possible violation of rights of citizens and foreigners, as shown the case of detainees in Guantanamo and U.S. soil.

The President performs many roles, but one role of increasing importance over time is that of Chief Manager of the Economy. In the era of the modern presidency, there has been a growing institutionalization of the executive branch’s management of the economy. Presidents approach economic management differently depending upon their personalities, management style, and their time within both the crisis and the administration. Three case studies will be used to explore the differences and similarities in presidential actions during times of economic crisis: these case studies will examine the presidencies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard M. Nixon, and William J. Clinton. The different methods and policy actions taken by these presidents are described as change oriented economic policy, electoral gain economic policy, and preemptive economic policy. This research will examine these methods to determine: 1.) How did each president approach economic policy? 2.) Were their approaches similar to a domestic policy or foreign policy? and 3.) What factors influence these approaches?

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2008. / Title from first page of PDF file (viewed January 6, 2009). Available via ProQuest Digital Dissertations. Vita. Embargoed until 12/1/2010. Includes bibliographical references (p. 278-292).