After England passed the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, other nations, including the United States, incorporated habeas corpus into their founding documents and constitutions. In the U.S. Constitution, the right to challenge unlawful detention is listed specifically in Article I, section 9. According to an article published by Rutherford Institute, it has been stated that “The right of habeas corpus was important to the Framers of the Constitution because they knew from personal experience what it was like to be labeled enemy combatants, imprisoned indefinitely and not given the opportunity to
Lincoln’s Abuse of the Presidential Power and why he suspended The Writ Habeas Corpus Joyce Dolford Pol 201: American National Government Instructor Teri Kuffel 11/24/2012 Lincoln’s Abuse of the Presidential Power and why he suspended the Writ Habeas Corpus Abraham Lincoln was the first 16th President of the United States serving from March 1861 until he was assassinated in April 1865. Abraham Lincoln led his country through it greatest Constitutional, Military and moral crisis. What is Habeas Corpus? Habeas Corpus is considered a cornerstone of due process of law. It means That a person cannot be detained unless they are brought in person before the court so that the court can determine whether or not the person is being lawfully held.
In Fletcher v. Peck in 1810 Marshall was ready to declare a state law unconstitutional. Judicial power and prestige was ready to preserve the Union. The case is the first clear precedent that Supreme Court is empowered to hold state laws unconstitutional This case marked the end of the Courts struggle to find its place in American Government; the Supreme Court began to be accepted
When evaluating the President’s relationship in regards to habeas corpus, one must first consider whether or not the President even has the right to confine individuals. “Absent a military conflict, the answer is likely no, whereas when Congress specifically authorizes detention, the answer is certainly yes” (Howe, 2014, p. 678). After 9/11, Congress had passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). AUMF allowed the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organization or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons” (Howe, 2014, p. 678). No matter what AUMF says however, one thing that it does not clearly state is whether or not the President is allowed to confine individuals.
As a result, courts often look for signs that Congress has either supported or opposed the President’s actions and rest their decisions on statutory grounds. (Bradley,2010). When people are caught that have harmed or attempted to harm Americas then I do feel that they need to be punished and held until they have served their time or until they can be placed in a prison somewhere else if Guantanamo Bay is closed. In the days immediately following the 11 September 2001 attacks on the USA, the Bush Administration implemented several measures to respond to what it interpreted as acts of war. President Bush proclaimed a national state of emergency.
The Alien Friends act which allowed the president to deport anyone who he thought posed a threat. The Alien Enemies Act (this is the one that forms the basis of the Patriot Act) which allow the President to capture and deport all immigrants whose country was at war with us and the final law under the Alien Sedition Acts was the Sedition Act which severely restricted a citizens right to free speech. A person could be jailed if he said anything bad against the government or it's leaders. This is really crazy because one of our freedoms is the freedom of speech. We should be able to say whatever it is that we want.
His thesis throughout the book: “Is burning the American flag as an act of protest protected by the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech.” Goldstein takes us from the 1989 incident that ignited the national controversy back to the origins of the flag as a symbol of America’s liberty and democracy. He explains the history of the American flag’s debate on desecration. Before 1984, the government had passed laws preventing desecration of the flag, but now Supreme Court protects burning the flag by the First Amendment. The author of this incredible work is a professor of political science at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. He has also taught at San Diego State University.
Iraq Prison Scandal In the year 2003 The Bush administration justified and led the American people into war with Iraq. The White house reported claims that Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, had weapons of mass destruction and that the people of Iraq were living under brutal dictatorship from their leader. Ostensibly the war was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and eviscerate and remnants of Alqaeda and its affiliates. The war mongers of both sides (democrats and republicans), wanted someone or something to blame for 9/11. After selling their lies and plans for the war to the America people, congress had given President Bush carte blanche to bring justice to those who caused pain and destruction on American soil.
This isn’t unconstitutional because they’re illegal or legal aliens that aren’t provided for under the constitution. The third act was the Alien Enemies Act, formally called “An Act Respecting Alien Enemies.” This act allowed the president to deport any and or all people from a country at which the United States was at war with. This also is constitutional because the government has to provide for its citizens first before that of peoples of other countries. The final act was the Sedition Act, formally called “An Act in Addition to the Act Entitled "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States.” This specifically made it a crime to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or certain
Alfonzo once again claimed that Commerce Clause which is basically where Congress is granted separate power, which Alfonzo thought was a direct violation of the Constitution Of The Unites States. The Fifth Circuit overturned the original conviction by stating the charges and the laws are past the powers of the Congress and in response to that the U.S. government then appealed to the Supreme court. The reason they did this was so the Commerce Laws could stay in effect. The Governments argument was the possession of a firearm on or within a school facility would likely be to commit a act of violence which would effect the school and how it is run and also the well being of the population, and because of all this the government believe that the commerce clause should be upheld. In