An article from the symposium issue of the Indiana Law Journal on "War, Terrorism and Torture: Limits on Presidential Power in the 21st Century." The symposium was convened by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the Indiana University School of Law–Bloomington on October 7, 2005.

Neil “Kinkopf’s version of the reciprocity approach, moreover, takes issue with “the emerging consensus” among leading legal academics (emerging in particular from recent work of Curtis Bradley, Jack Goldsmith and Cass Sunstein), which he describes as a requirement of clear statutory statements of presidential authority in the case of most issues that implicate individual rights, but deference to presidential statutory interpretations where disputes center on questions of constitutional structure. With the reminder that the Framers designed the constitutional framework, including the separation of powers, to protect liberty, Kinkopf flatly rejects the often-proffered rights/structure dichotomy as using inappropriate “loaded dice” that sometimes will over-protect and sometimes under-protect rights. He proposes looking instead to the specifics of the statute and controversy and seeking to effectuate all relevant constitutional values.” –From Foreword by Prof. Dawn Johnsen