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

inalienable by any, and every authority, therefore, actions were taken that violate such rights should be declared unconstitutional.
In 1863, President Lincoln felt it was necessary, for the safety of U.S.

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

D)...”
My position on the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is similar to that of Chief Justice Roger Taney; I believe it is unconstitutional to suspend the writ of habeas corpus—no matter the circumstances. In Source G, it shows a time when habeas corpus has been suspended, and the House, the Senate, and the war prez are collectively saying to the statue of liberty that she is guilty until proven innocent in times of war. The constitution states that “...no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (Source C),” and that is what the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is doing, depriving people of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. We always hear that the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Forget what congress says, it clearly states in the constitution that what these federal occupants have done was unconstitutional. Without our rights given to us by the constitution, “...people of the United States are no longer living under the government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty, and property at the will and pleasure of the Army officer (Source C)...”
In conclusion, writ of habeas corpus ensures due process for every citizen of the United States. Without the writ of habeas corpus, our country would be a dictatorship, and U.S. citizens would have little to no rights.The constitution grants citizens rights that are inalienable by any, and every authority, therefore, I believe, actions taken that violate such rights should be declared unconstitutional.