Although Congress passed for bills known as the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 intending to help protect the government of the united states from potential threats, they did not truly protect Americans from their foreign enemies. There were many controversies that developed around and because of these acts. The Alien Acts had three parts. The first part stated that you had to live on U.S. soil for at least fourteen years in oder to become a citizen. This made it harder for foreighners to become citizens.The second part stated that the President had power to deport all aliens that he thought dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.
Habeas Corpus Kevin Clark Sr. POL201: American National Government (GSl1233B) Professor: Dovie Dawson September 17, 2012 Habeas Corpus If you get arrested in the United States there are certain laws that the procedures the courts must follow after detaining you as a prisoner. To ensure this is done right the Government came up with what is called the Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus is a Latin phrase that means “we command that you have a body”; it is a “writ” or a court order also known as the Great Writ that requires a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into a court of law. This is done to ensure that a prisoner can be released from unlawful detentions, it is also used to challenge the legality
It seems to me that statutes can be either struck down after interpretation or continue to be enforced. If someone challenges the statute, it could travel all the way to the Supreme Court to be interpreted. The Supreme Court can provide a decision whether that statute is being applied in a constitutional manner. In the passage we read, the state tried Johnson with a statute that eventually was struck down because it was inconsistent with the translation of the First Amendment. So, statutes can be amended or changed if not acceptable.
Lujan v. Defenders of wildlife 504 U.S. 555 (1992) Facts of the Case: Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 divides responsibilities regarding the protection of endangered species between the Secretary of the Interior (Manuel Lujan, D) and the Secretary of Commerce. The section requires each federal agency to consult with the appropriate Secretary to ensure that any action funded by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence or habitat of any endangered or threatened species. Both Secretaries initially promulgated a joint regulation extending the section’s coverage to include actions taken in foreign nations; however, a subsequent joint rule limited the section’s scope to the United States and the
Basic Principles of the War Powers By Louis Fisher Article Review Abstract The article by Louis Fisher entitled Basic Principles of the War Powers examines the history and established regulation of war declaration under Article I of the United States Constitution. The framers of the Constitution of the United States specified that the executive power of war would be transferred to Congress as a measure to prevent the establishment of a monarchy form of government. After World War II, the power of Congress to grant war powers to the President has appeared circumvented because of conflicts in Korea and Vietnam without specific approval from Congress. The article by Louis Fisher outlines the power vested in Congress to grant war
Lincoln also declared a blockade of the Southern coast, an act of war that, arguably, recognized the status of the Confederacy as a belligerent nation rather than as a mere mass of individuals in rebellion against the Union (which Lincoln insisted they were). The suspension of habeas corpus was perhaps the most constitutionally significant of these acts. Often known as the Great Writ of Liberty, habeas corpus is the constitutionally authorized means by which a court may immediately assume jurisdiction over an arrested individual and inquire into the legality of the detention. If a court concludes that the detention is unlawful, it is empowered to immediately release the individual. In suspending the writ, Lincoln relied on the constitutional authorization that the framers had perceptively included years before in Article I, Section 9 (which reads, in part, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it”).
April 2010, Arizona enacted two laws addressing immigration, SB 1070 and HB 2162. These laws added new state requirements, crimes and penalties related to enforcement of immigration laws and were to become effective on July 29, 2010. Before the laws could go into effect, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit asking for an injunction against these laws arguing that they are unconstitutional. On July 28, Judge Bolton granted the request for injunction in part and enjoined those provisions related to state law officers determining immigration status during any lawful stop; the requirement to carry alien registration documents; the prohibition on applying for work if unauthorized; and permission for warrantless arrests if there is probable cause the offense would make the person is removable from the United States. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer appealed the injunction and arguments were heard by the 9th U.S.
The administration had to somehow convinced the United Nations (UN) that Iraq is not respecting and upholding the laws that they were supposed to be abiding by. The United States determined the defiance in terrorism, sanctions, and weapons of mass destruction, were sufficient violations
.United States v. 'Caltex, Inc. (Philippines), 344 U.S. 149, 155-56 (1952). See also Herrera v. United States, 222 U.S. 558 (1912); Juragua Iron Co. v. United States, 212 U:S. 297 (1909); Ford v. Surget, 97 U.S. 594 (1878). These cases and the untenable consequences for the President's condUct of awar that would result from the application of the Due Process Clause demonstrate its inapplicability during wartime-whether to the conduct of interrogations or the detention of enemy aliens. Second, even if the Fifth Amendment applied to enemy combatants in wartime, it is clear that that the Fifth Amendment .does not operate outside the United States to regulate the Executive's conduct toward ,aliens. The Supreme Court has squarely held that the Fifth Amendment provides no rights to non-citizens who have no established connection to the country and who are held outside sovereign United States territory.
DATE: April 30, 2011 By: johneb57@e.coolworks.com QUESTION On March 25, 2011 the Supreme Court of Alaska issued Opinion No. 6547 consolidating the cases of John Carlin III and Jimmie Dale answering the following question: What is the effect of the death of a criminal defendant while an appeal is pending? In reaching its opinion, the Court was required to examine the doctrine of Stare Decisis prior to overruling itself in its decision of Hartwell v. State. In that case the Court held that the death of a criminal defendant, while a conviction was on appeal, would permanently abate all criminal proceedings and nullify the defendant’s conviction. This memorandum address’ Stare Decisis as applied in Alaska and the holding of the court in the instant case of Carlin v. State.