To follow up my first post on Bruce Ackerman's and Oona Hathaway's op-ed , I'd also note that he and his co-author presume that Section 2(a)(2), authorizing military force to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq," referred only to subsequent U.N. authorizations pertaining to Iraq. Of course, Congress referred to several prior U.N. resolutions pertaining to Iraq, too.
Isn't it curious that Ackerman and Hathaway read the U.N.-resolution subsection as applying to future U.N. resolutions, while they read the national-security-threat subsection as applying only to pre-2003 threats?
TODAY IN SLATE
Don’t Expect Adrian Peterson to Go to Prison
In much of America, beating your children is perfectly legal.
Ken Burns on Why Teddy Roosevelt Would Never Get Elected in 2014
Cops Briefly Detain Django Unchained Actress Because They Thought She Was a Prostitute
Minimalist Cocktail Posters Make Mixing Drinks a Cinch
How the Apple Watch Will Annoy Us
A glowing screen attached to someone else’s wrist is shinier than all but the blingiest of jewels.
Rainbow Parties and Sex Bracelets
Where teenage sex rumors come from—and why they’re bad for parents and kids.
You Had to Be There
What we can learn from things that used to be funny.