Academic Work
Click here to see my SSRN page.
-
Winner of 2023-2024 Stanford Law School Legal History Paper Prize
Winner of 2024 Federalist Society Young Legal Scholars Paper Competition
Watch a conference presentation of a draft (my remarks begin at 1:17:35)
The United States struggles to craft and executea “grand strategy,” or a long-term, holistic, and prioritized plan to secure its interests abroad. This is a consequence, I argue, not of domestic polarization or benign geopolitical conditions, as social scientists posit, but of constitutional law. Because the U.S. Constitution divides authority over foreign affairs and prescribes frequent transfers of power, the government can rarely agree on foreign-policy aims, maintain those aims over time, and implement a whole-of-government plan to accomplish them.
But it need not have been this way—and very nearly was not. Until the proverbial eleventh hour of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, in fact, nearly all delegates assumed the Senate, a permanent body insulated from popular pressure, would exercise near-plenary authority over foreign affairs.
This Article recovers that forgotten vision of the Senate as a “council of grand strategists,” a body endowed with the qualities and vested with the authorities to direct foreign policy. Nationalist delegates’ “original hope” for such a council, alongside confederalists’ “original fear” of it, animated the Convention’s debates over the Senate’s form and functions. At stake was not only the Senate’s role in foreign relations but also the nation’s capacity to orchestrate grand strategy. The interbranch struggle over foreign policy that we are familiar with today emerged not as a consequence of “reflection and choice,” but as a byproduct of the Convention’s late-stage compromises, which undermined delegates’ confidence in the Senate.
Scholars of U.S. foreign relations law have criticized the outsized role that post-ratification political practice plays in settling interbranch foreign-policy disputes. Meanwhile, scholars of international relations have lamented the chronic absence of U.S. grand strategy. By developing and applying a novel theory of the relationship between constitutional arrangement and grand strategy, this Article provides a unified explanation for both puzzles grounded in the Constitution’s creation. The Convention’s ad hoc and imprecise scattering of foreign-policy powers among rival institutions, each subject to frequent turnover, made grand strategy an unrealistic expectation of American constitutional government and left constitutional gaps that “historical gloss” has filled.
At a moment of increasing volatility in U.S. foreign policy, this history suggests that the instability is not so much a failure of statesmanship or bipartisanship as it is a result of constitutional design. By carefully reconstructing Convention debates, this Article also casts doubt on claims that the Article II Vesting Clause silently confers broad residual foreign-policy prerogatives on the president.
-
Click here to listen to a podcast where I discuss the article.
Abstract
Is statesmanship compatible with constitutional government? Scholars have posited the possibility of “constitutional statesmanship” in America but have done little to probe its historical reality or evaluate its consequences. To illustrate some of the limits, possibilities, and ambivalences of constitutional statesmanship in practice, this article examines Franklin Roosevelt’s leadership on the home front as the country contemplated and later waged war abroad. I argue that while the president applied constitutional statesmanship to prepare his nation for war, this brand of circumscribed statesmanship later struggled to resolve the tensions between the demands of war and the dictates of constitutionalism. After explaining how distinct notions of constitutionalism generate unique expectations of statesmanship, I show how Roosevelt’s own conceptions of the U.S. Constitution and American statesmanship, developed before World War II, elucidate his leadership decisions during wartime. His leadership, for good or ill, indelibly shaped the powers of the U.S. commander in chief and the constitutional order we live under today.
Roadmap
This article proceeds in six parts. First, I urge the rehabilitation of “statesmanship” as an evaluative standard, a standard undervalued in presidency studies and ill understood in American public discourse. To this end, I define constitutional statesmanship and posit a method of evaluating leadership against its standard. Because evaluating a leader against this standard requires an appreciation for the conceptual relationship between constitutionalism and statesmanship, I also illustrate how distinct notions of constitutionalism generate distinct expectations of statesmen. Second, I discuss my case selection, Roosevelt in World War II, the sources dictated by that case, and the intellectual and historical contexts that framed prevailing understandings of American constitutionalism and statesmanship in that era. Third, I outline FDR’s own conceptions of the U.S. Constitution and the place for statesmanship within it. Fourth, I explain FDR’s prewar, national defense–oriented leadership in terms of those conceptions and then evaluate his leadership against the standard of constitutional statesmanship. Fifth, I likewise explain and appraise his wartime actions. Finally, I conclude by comparing Roosevelt’s contemporaries’ evaluations of his constitutional leadership, demonstrating what the standard developed herein adds to those evaluations, and illustrating how precedents Roosevelt established have been used and abused by his successors.
-
From Introduction to International Relations (Fall 2024); complete student survey here.
“Luke was probably the best TA I have had at my time at UVA. He was very knowledgeable on a wide range of subject matters, which allowed him to effectively answer any questions the class may have had. He effectively commanded the classroom, allowing all students to be engaged and participate in the class discussion which really contributed to our success in the course.”
“He would encourage open discussions and truly wanted us to express how we felt and that enabled us to explore different perspectives in international politics. He consistently provided many different perspectives for one particular subject in our discussion sections which made it a safe and open space for dialogue that enriched all of our understandings. His knowledge was something the participants would often praise. You would present an idea and he immediately knew what idea, theory, or dialogue it was related to and asked questions to deepen our understanding.”
“Luke gave us very good feedback to help us on future assignments. Luke is extremely smart, brilliant I'd say, and I am honestly so glad to have been able to work with him and gain knowledge from his intelligent brain.”
“Luke Schumacher was extremely personable and fostered a safe space to ask questions. His feedback was actionable, which helped students improve on each assignment. His knowledge and method of presenting it was extremely digestible and rich. I had a great experience this semester with him and his contributions and insights have made my experience in the course!”
“This discussion would not have been the same without Luke and I can tell how passionate he is about teaching us about international relations. He is extremely knowledgeable and it was great to work with him.”
“Luke Schumacher's ability to connect concepts with practical examples helped deepen my comprehension and application of the material. I greatly appreciated how he went out of his way to be accessible for questions and ensured everyone was supported. He created a highly productive learning environment. My experience in this course would not have been complete with his insight!”
“The learning activities facilitated by Luke Schumacher greatly contributed to my understanding of the course material. He consistently clarified complex topics, encouraged thoughtful discussion, and provided detailed, actionable feedback.”
“Elite section – Thanks for being awesome.”
“Luke is just wonderful.”
“I suppose since everyone has different backgrounds when it comes to international relations and the topic we discussed in class, some topics may be sensitive, I clearly remember saying something wrong in class but the instructor was really helpful in rounding it up so the comment didn't offend anyone.”
“Luke always made sure to be respectful when discussing international relations topics and created a safe environment in which students felt comfortable discussing difficult issues.”
“He was open do all political perspectives and taught in a non-partisan manner.”
“Luke welcomed all views and entertained any question or comment.”
“He was very understanding of what was said in discussion. He'd also bring in counterpoints to what we were discussing for us to see different perspectives.”
“Luke was a great TA who helped me understand the backgrounds of IR first when I was having trouble. He also provided very good discussion questions for the class to talk about during discussion section to make it productive. I appreciate the work he's done and I hope to have him again.”
“He is great! Very knowledgeable about the topics.”
“Luke was a great and knowledgeable resource.”
“It was great. I didn't dislike anything about the way it was structured or the things we were required to do.”
Working Papers
Click here to see my SSRN page.
-
PLIR 1010; Fall 2024; Instructor of record: Peter A. Furia
International relations (IR) traditionally refers to the study of conflict and cooperation among sovereign states, with a particular emphasis on the military behavior of great powers. In recent decades, however, the majority of the world’s wars have been civil wars, and IR scholars have become increasingly interested in non-military issues like inequality, migration, climate change and international law. Our course reflects these developments in the field and combines mostly humanistic readings with mostly social-scientific assignments.
-
PLIR 3080; Spring 2025; Instructor of Record: Todd S. Sechser
Nuclear weapons are an old technology, yet they continue to command outsized attention in international politics. This course explores the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. foreign policy, the foreign policies of other countries, and in international relations more generally. It aims to help students understand why countries pursue (or do not pursue) nuclear weapons, what they try to do with those weapons, and how to think through problems of nuclear strategy.
-
From Introduction to International Relations (Fall 2024); complete student survey here.
“Luke was probably the best TA I have had at my time at UVA. He was very knowledgeable on a wide range of subject matters, which allowed him to effectively answer any questions the class may have had. He effectively commanded the classroom, allowing all students to be engaged and participate in the class discussion which really contributed to our success in the course.”
“He would encourage open discussions and truly wanted us to express how we felt and that enabled us to explore different perspectives in international politics. He consistently provided many different perspectives for one particular subject in our discussion sections which made it a safe and open space for dialogue that enriched all of our understandings. His knowledge was something the participants would often praise. You would present an idea and he immediately knew what idea, theory, or dialogue it was related to and asked questions to deepen our understanding.”
“Luke gave us very good feedback to help us on future assignments. Luke is extremely smart, brilliant I'd say, and I am honestly so glad to have been able to work with him and gain knowledge from his intelligent brain.”
“Luke Schumacher was extremely personable and fostered a safe space to ask questions. His feedback was actionable, which helped students improve on each assignment. His knowledge and method of presenting it was extremely digestible and rich. I had a great experience this semester with him and his contributions and insights have made my experience in the course!”
“This discussion would not have been the same without Luke and I can tell how passionate he is about teaching us about international relations. He is extremely knowledgeable and it was great to work with him.”
“Luke Schumacher's ability to connect concepts with practical examples helped deepen my comprehension and application of the material. I greatly appreciated how he went out of his way to be accessible for questions and ensured everyone was supported. He created a highly productive learning environment. My experience in this course would not have been complete with his insight!”
“The learning activities facilitated by Luke Schumacher greatly contributed to my understanding of the course material. He consistently clarified complex topics, encouraged thoughtful discussion, and provided detailed, actionable feedback.”
“Elite section – Thanks for being awesome.”
“Luke is just wonderful.”
“I suppose since everyone has different backgrounds when it comes to international relations and the topic we discussed in class, some topics may be sensitive, I clearly remember saying something wrong in class but the instructor was really helpful in rounding it up so the comment didn't offend anyone.”
“Luke always made sure to be respectful when discussing international relations topics and created a safe environment in which students felt comfortable discussing difficult issues.”
“He was open do all political perspectives and taught in a non-partisan manner.”
“Luke welcomed all views and entertained any question or comment.”
“He was very understanding of what was said in discussion. He'd also bring in counterpoints to what we were discussing for us to see different perspectives.”
“Luke was a great TA who helped me understand the backgrounds of IR first when I was having trouble. He also provided very good discussion questions for the class to talk about during discussion section to make it productive. I appreciate the work he's done and I hope to have him again.”
“He is great! Very knowledgeable about the topics.”
“Luke was a great and knowledgeable resource.”
“It was great. I didn't dislike anything about the way it was structured or the things we were required to do.”
Commentary
Click here to see my SSRN page.
-
PLIR 1010; Fall 2024; Instructor of record: Peter A. Furia
International relations (IR) traditionally refers to the study of conflict and cooperation among sovereign states, with a particular emphasis on the military behavior of great powers. In recent decades, however, the majority of the world’s wars have been civil wars, and IR scholars have become increasingly interested in non-military issues like inequality, migration, climate change and international law. Our course reflects these developments in the field and combines mostly humanistic readings with mostly social-scientific assignments.
-
PLIR 3080; Spring 2025; Instructor of Record: Todd S. Sechser
Nuclear weapons are an old technology, yet they continue to command outsized attention in international politics. This course explores the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. foreign policy, the foreign policies of other countries, and in international relations more generally. It aims to help students understand why countries pursue (or do not pursue) nuclear weapons, what they try to do with those weapons, and how to think through problems of nuclear strategy.
-
From Introduction to International Relations (Fall 2024); complete student survey here.
“Luke was probably the best TA I have had at my time at UVA. He was very knowledgeable on a wide range of subject matters, which allowed him to effectively answer any questions the class may have had. He effectively commanded the classroom, allowing all students to be engaged and participate in the class discussion which really contributed to our success in the course.”
“He would encourage open discussions and truly wanted us to express how we felt and that enabled us to explore different perspectives in international politics. He consistently provided many different perspectives for one particular subject in our discussion sections which made it a safe and open space for dialogue that enriched all of our understandings. His knowledge was something the participants would often praise. You would present an idea and he immediately knew what idea, theory, or dialogue it was related to and asked questions to deepen our understanding.”
“Luke gave us very good feedback to help us on future assignments. Luke is extremely smart, brilliant I'd say, and I am honestly so glad to have been able to work with him and gain knowledge from his intelligent brain.”
“Luke Schumacher was extremely personable and fostered a safe space to ask questions. His feedback was actionable, which helped students improve on each assignment. His knowledge and method of presenting it was extremely digestible and rich. I had a great experience this semester with him and his contributions and insights have made my experience in the course!”
“This discussion would not have been the same without Luke and I can tell how passionate he is about teaching us about international relations. He is extremely knowledgeable and it was great to work with him.”
“Luke Schumacher's ability to connect concepts with practical examples helped deepen my comprehension and application of the material. I greatly appreciated how he went out of his way to be accessible for questions and ensured everyone was supported. He created a highly productive learning environment. My experience in this course would not have been complete with his insight!”
“The learning activities facilitated by Luke Schumacher greatly contributed to my understanding of the course material. He consistently clarified complex topics, encouraged thoughtful discussion, and provided detailed, actionable feedback.”
“Elite section – Thanks for being awesome.”
“Luke is just wonderful.”
“I suppose since everyone has different backgrounds when it comes to international relations and the topic we discussed in class, some topics may be sensitive, I clearly remember saying something wrong in class but the instructor was really helpful in rounding it up so the comment didn't offend anyone.”
“Luke always made sure to be respectful when discussing international relations topics and created a safe environment in which students felt comfortable discussing difficult issues.”
“He was open do all political perspectives and taught in a non-partisan manner.”
“Luke welcomed all views and entertained any question or comment.”
“He was very understanding of what was said in discussion. He'd also bring in counterpoints to what we were discussing for us to see different perspectives.”
“Luke was a great TA who helped me understand the backgrounds of IR first when I was having trouble. He also provided very good discussion questions for the class to talk about during discussion section to make it productive. I appreciate the work he's done and I hope to have him again.”
“He is great! Very knowledgeable about the topics.”
“Luke was a great and knowledgeable resource.”
“It was great. I didn't dislike anything about the way it was structured or the things we were required to do.”