“The American Constitution at Article I, Section 9 states that: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Case of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. Throughout times of war the presidents of the United States have overlooked the importance of habeas corpus due to fear. They want answers in a time of crisis. This is understandable. As a commander-in-chief, it is our president’s responsibility to make important decisions about keeping the citizens of the United States safe.
The President signed the commissions as required by law and the Secretary of State at the time affixed the Presidential seal as required by law. James Madison as current Secretary of State refused to deliver these signed commissions to Marbury and the other nominees. Statement of the Rule: A law in conflict with the Constitution is void and it is the duty of the Court to determine if such a conflict exists. Holding: Marbury is not entitled to a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court requiring Madison to deliver the justice of the peace commission. Reasoning: The section of the Judiciary Act of 1792 (passed by Congress) relied on by Marbury which granted the Supreme Court the right to issue writs of mandamus to government officials was unconstitutional and therefore is void and of no effect.
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
We can control our own actions whether they are right or wrong and be held accountability for them. We can teach others from right and wrong. We cannot control the actions of others even if they are good, but we can definitely hold them accountability for the wrong actions. Having more information about the timeline and events of 9-11 makes me wonder if the President would have acted on some of the information would so many people have died that day. President George W. Bush declared, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.
Pros and Cons of Closing Guantanamo Bay American National Government Instructor: Nicole Reale Janet Talley October 29, 2012 Pros and Cons of Closing Guantanamo Bay After researching and much reading, I found it hard to write solely on keeping Guantanamo Bay open. Before I read all the information that I did, I was dead set that we should keep it open, but now I am not so sure about my thoughts. I do feel that we need to give the President the right to make decisions in war times and even when the United States of America has been exposed to terrorist. The Scope of the President’s independent war powers is notoriously unclear, and courts are understandably reluctant to issued constitutional rulings that might deprive the federal government as a whole the flexibility needed to respond to crises. 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.
In other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take action. And it’s also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. Even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians -- where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities, for example, that pose no threat to us; times when putting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis.” (President Obama, 2013) There are several international events in the past that can be traced back to a foreign policy created after the Civil War. * Platt Amendment of 1901, which allowed the U.S. to militarily intervene in Cuba whenever revolution threatened, would be one of the earlier actions that serve as an example of the U.S. interfering when we were not wanted. There was a lot of resentment from Cubans because they argued that it took away their independence.
In the case Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court invalidated a law, passed by Congress, by declaring an act unconstitutional for the first time. The doctrine of Judicial Review was set forth by this case. The Court did not want to show vulnerability of its judicial prestige so it only asserted minimal power. Marshall’s decision suggests he was aware of the long-term objective to enhance judicial powers and diminish state autonomy. In Fletcher v. Peck in 1810 Marshall was ready to declare a state law unconstitutional.
Shue does not necessarily attempt to show that torture is never justified. In fact, he admits that he “can see no way to deny the permissibility of torture in a case just like this” (Shue, pg 141) as he portrays a scenario involving the destruction of the city of Paris and most of its population. Its fate hangs in the balance and can be potentially avoided by the torturing an individual confirmed to have planted a nuclear weapon within its confines to ascertain its whereabouts. In his explanation of why torture is morally reprehensible Shue discusses the laws of war which exist that determine what he calls the “proper conduct of the killing of other people” (Shue, pg 127). He explains that a basic principle is the distinction between combatants and noncombatants.
Is Torture Ever Justified? Terrorism and Civil Liberties The Economist In this piece “Is Torture Ever Justified?” the issue of torture being used on enemies during interrogation is the focus and it seems to me the author argues that it is not justifiable but only in certain circumstances. I would argue with him on his claim, I do not feel that torture is ever justifiable regardless of how dire the situation. According to this article torture is banned from almost everything. There are treaties set in place such as the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention against Torture that are against it “consider it along with genocide, torture is the only crime that every state must punish it no matter what”.
On the other hand, the liberals, or Judicial Activists, believe that the founding fathers recognized that standards of their time wouldn’t apply to the future, so therefore left the constitution broadly based and available for contemporary interpretation. In my opinion, as in many others, Judicial Activism is just an excuse for justices to rule based on personal opinion. The judicial branch of the government needs to show judicial restraint because of the variety of the cases they receive. They need to make sure that the rulings they enact are rulings that follow the constitution and not their own personal beliefs as they have been doing for some time now. In my opinion, the most important example of judicial restraint being in need in American history occurred on May 20, 1940.