This is the best edited book on civil liberties and the Bill of Rights I have ever seen ... and I have seen many because I teach this topic at the University of Texas Law School and as an upper level undergraduate course. Not only are the cases well-wedited, but the chapter and sub-chapter introductory summaries are excellent. I use the book for the undergraduate course. I can't sing its praises too much.

Constitutional scholar Louis Fisher has done a magnificent job capturing the history of what he calls "presidential warmaking" -- that is, the tendency of presidents to usurp Congress's Constitutional war-making power. Fisher is not persuaded by claims advanced by modern presidents -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- that the Commander-in-Chief clause grants them broad discretionary war-making powers. His book is a long legal brief in favor of returning the war powers to the Congress.

At times, Fisher's belief in the rightness of his cause borders on the polemic. Though he recognizes that Congress has been complicit in presidential war-making, he reserves his harshest criticism for the presidents themselves. Arguably, however, it takes two to tango; if Congress actually *wanted* the war powers, it could take them "back." But as research shows, it is easier -- and therefore more palatable -- to sit on the sidelines, sniping at the president in case of failure or claiming a share of the credit after success.

No student of American politics or American foreign policy can plausibly claim to discuss the role of the executive branch in military/foreign policy without having digested Fisher's book.

Although some background in constitutional law may be helpful, this book is very readable. Fisher is a thorough scholar, but he is also honest in giving vent to his frustration with Congress' cessation of war power in the modern evolution of Executive-Legislative relations.

This book is a great resource for historical and anecdotal information on the constitutional balance of power between the President and the Congress. Well-cited, and with a firm basis in constitutional logic and theory, Fisher develops a clear case that -although it does take on a diatribal flavor at times- does not require academic contortions to be demonstrated.

The criticism of the War Powers Act is very powerful, and needs to be understood more broadly in America. The unconstitutionality of the act is one reason it is never seriously invoked by the President or insisted upon by Congress, yet many people still refer to it as the crux for understanding the war powers balance between the Presidency and the Congress.

An excellent book for anyone interested in Constitutional allocation of power; useful for students, professors, and the concerned citizen.

"Treasure Island" is the classic adventure novel by Robert Louis Stevenson. Set on the high seas amid treasures and pirates, it is the story of a young boy's adventure. "Treasure Island" has been done by everyone from Disney to the Muppets. It's been imitated many times and influenced countless books and movies.

A mysterious pirate shows up at an inn owned by Jim Hawkin's mother. The pirate is killed by a gang of rogues, but Jim finds a treasure map belonging to the pirate. Jim then embarks on a journey to far away island to find the treasure. Of course, nobody can be trusted - especially the cook, Long John Silver. With his peg leg and parrot, Silver is the stereotypical pirate. Once the island is reached, sides are chosen - the mutinous pirates against the ship's crew. Jim goes on a journey within a journey on the island, going from one side to another, as the treasure is hunted for.

Everyone should read this book at some point. It's especially good for young boys, due to the fact that the main character (Jim) is a young boy. It's well crafted, and easy to read. And it's hard to put down once you get going. What else can you ask for?

This book is absolutely amazing! The beginning may have been a little dull, but towards the middle I really started to get into it. The story kept me glued to the book. I would get dissapointed when I was told to stop reading. It seemed that every time I had to stop, there was some adventure that had just begun.

It starts out with a struggling family who owns an inn. One day, an adventurous seaman, known as the "cap'n" comes to their inn. Once the pirate dies, the inn owners son, Jim, starts to check out the cap'n's chest that was in his room. Jim discovers a map that leads to Captain Flint's buried treasure. This brings along many adventures, and laughs!

Jim and the town doctor and the town squire set out to find this buried treasure. During the trip to Treasure Island, Jim makes the startling discovery that the people working and sailing the ship are planning to overthrow the captain and his men. Once there, Jim, the captain, the doctor and the squire sneak off to the other side of the island. This leads everyone to war as Jim meets a castaway that had been on the island for three years. This man helps Jim and the other men to saftey, while the leader of the pirates, Long John Silver, continues to hunt for the treasure.

Jim and the castaway take control of the pirates ship and are soon looking for treasure themselves. Jim, wandering about on his own, falls into the clutches of the enemy. This creates commotion as the castaway and the other men try to free him, but cannot. The pirates are soon out looking for the treasure again with Jim and make it to where the treaure should be. To their surprise, it is gone!

The doctor and squire kill the other pirates, except for Silver, and take him and Jim to the castaways cave. The castaway, having been on the island for three years, had found the treasure and carried it all to a hidden cave by the coast. Inside the cave was also meat that the castaway had hunted for. Jim and the others make it to the cave and move the treasure onto the boat.Then they sail away and everyone lives happily ever after (except the pirates).

Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson is by far one of the best adventure stories I have ever read. This book deserves all five stars, it has everything you could ask for such as, suspense, comedy, action, drama and a great plot line. R.L. Stevenson puts a lot of detail into his main characters such as Long John Silver and Jim Hawkins just to name a few. He describes the scenes with such great detail that at times I had to remind myself that it is only a book. I spent more than 2 months reading this book and I enjoyed every part of it. I could RARELY find a paragraph that was dull, the book was very exciting overall. This book is fairly easy to read and I would recommend it to adults and children of all ages. The book moves at a very good pace, not too fast, not too slow. This book is anything but boring, something new happens in every chapter for instance, when Jim witnesses a murder and when he gets into bar fights, those are just some of the many things that happened. I was very surprised myself when I read this book because it seems a little childish but in fact it's quite the contrary. I highly recommend that you go out and read this book!

I read this book for a course on the US Congress. Louis Fisher paints a picture of a Congress that has lost it's will to fight the president for it's war and spending powers which are explicitly given to it in the Constitution. The book shows that up until President Truman, Congress had exclusive control over these powers. The president grabbed more power during war time, but then power went back to Congress in peace. Fisher Argues that since Truman congress has given up these power, or abdicated them, and no longer trusts itself to conduct the nations business.

REVIEWED BY PHILIP GOLD http://www.washtimes.com/books/

The Congressional Research Service, part of the Library of Congress, is filled with people who do fine work. Among the best is Louis Fisher, legal scholar and CRS senior specialist in Separation of Powers. Mr. Fisher combines a plain, effective style with a mature analytic sense. The result has been over three decades of books and studies that - blessings upon the taxpayer - actually inform and affect the real world. "Nazi Saboteurs on Trial," which Mr. Fisher intends as a prelude to his definitive history of American military tribunals, is only the latest example.
This short, meticulously researched monograph assesses one of the stranger legal escapades of World War II. The facts of the case are not in question. What matters is how the military and civilian court systems performed, the interaction of the executive and judicial branches, and whether that episode should or could serve as precedent for the trial of terrorists and other "unlawful combatants" by military means.
Mr. Fisher's answer: While such types do not and should not enjoy automatic access to the U.S. civilian court system and its protections, the use of military tribunals raises questions that cannot and should not be ignored.
The facts of the case are these.
In the 1941 "Sebold Affair," the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with the help of William Sebold, a German turned American counterspy, rolled up over 30 Nazi agents. Adolf Hitler, perturbed, demanded that English-speaking saboteurs be dispatched to America, there to smash factories and railroads and Jewish-owned department stores, spread panic, and generally make themselves a nuisance. German intelligence, the Abwehr, didn't think much of the idea, but deemed it prudent to keep the Fuhrer happy.
So they went out and recruited the original Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight: eight Germans who had lived in the United States (two of them naturalized citizens), but had returned to Germany in the '30s for various reasons. None was the brightest tree in the forest; group cohesion and mutual trust might be described as negative, at best. Still, the eight were given a few weeks' training, then toted aboard two submarines.
In June, 1942, one group landed in New Jersey, the other in Florida. They came ashore in German uniforms, which would give them combatant status in case of immediate capture. They then changed into civvies, buried their tradecraft, and walked off with not much more than their ample moneybelts and orders to win one for the Fuhrer.
They were apprehended quickly, mostly because one of their number, George Dasch, called the FBI to let them know they'd arrived. Perhaps none of the men intended actually to commit any sabotage. None did. But that didn't keep six of them from the electric chair that August, and two others from life sentences.
Justice, such as it was, came swiftly and questionably. President Franklin Roosevelt, taking a grim special interest in the case, determined to try them by secret military tribunal. He appointed the members and decreed himself the sole reviewing authority. Further, the tribunal would not be a standard court martial, governed by the Articles of War and other legislation. It would be an ad hoc commission, governed by the "laws of war" (a nebulous category) and empowered to make such procedural changes as it deemed expedient.
Among them: Although civilian and military courts could not impose the death penalty for actual acts of sabotage, this tribunal could, and did, for acts that were never committed, and may never have been intended.
Clearly, this setup raised numerous questions regarding the separation of powers, military jurisdiction in time of war, and of fundamental fairness. One of the defense attorneys petitioned the Supreme Court, which effectually evaded the issue until after the executions, then issued its opinion in Ex Parte Quirin - a document that did nothing for the luster of the Court, then or since.
In essence, concludes Mr. Fisher, the Supreme Court functioned as "an arm of the executive." It reaffirmed that enemy combatants have no constitutional right of access to civilian courts; that the two citizens had forfeited their citizenship by taking up arms; and that when they took off their uniforms, they became "illegal combatants" who could have been shot out of hand, but who were graciously afforded a trial.
Finally, the Court held that it could not assess the trial itself, since that was secret.
In sum, a mixed set of precedents, ranging from common sense to dereliction of duty. And the question arises - will we be able to learn from the affair to make the handling and disposition of terrorists and other "illegal combatants" both more effective and more just?
Or will we be fortunate even to do as well?