Essay On Writ Of Habeas Corpus

Have you ever wondered what the United States would be like if law forces could arrest citizens for no valid reason such as one’s appearance, or where they’re from, or even the way they talk and dress. Thankfully, as a US citizen, no one would ever have to experience anything like that under the life-long protection of the writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order person or agency holding someone in custody to deliver the imprisoned individual to the court issuing the order and to show a valid reason for that person’s detention. Basically, the writ of habeas corpus ensures due process for every citizen of the United States. Throughout our country’s existence, there’s been plenty of controversy surrounding the suspension of habeas corpus and wartime powers of an executive. The constitution grants citizens’ rights that are

citizens, to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Previous to this, the suspension was only constitutional if Congress were the one to suspend it, not the president. In 1861, Congress passed an act that gave the president authority to “...suspend the writ when and where, in his judgment, that action was necessary (Source A).” Whether this act was constitutional, or not, was a big issue. People who agreed with the suspension argued that in times of endangerment, the president should have the authority, while others, including Chief Justice Roger Taney, Justice David Davis, and Justice O’Connor, believed that suspension of the writ was equivalent to disregarding the constitution. Chief Justice Roger Taney said these actions exceed authority, infringe on citizen’s rights, and completely disdain everything the constitution and the US stood for. Justice David Davis couldn’t have been more truthful when, in 1866, he said, “...By the protection of the law human rights are secured; withdraw that protection, and they are at the mercy of wicked ruler (Source