Introduction
A Writ of Habeas Corpus is an authoritative order forcing governments to provide the “body” of the detainee in which the legality of their detention and individual liberties will be challenged. Historically associated with civil liberty violation and the injustice of illegally detaining potentially enemies of the state, jurisdictional issues regarding their detaining location have made justice difficult to administer and deliver. Detaining enemies for their participation, involvement, and/or ties to threats of terror towards the United States will result the confinement of combatants, as solidified by the US Constitution, however, to what extent will they be forced to stay?. Residents of Guantanamo Bay are just; enemies of the state, accused individual that have been arrested and detain with minimal civil human rights to our jurisdictional due process that we American’s hold dear; with only a Writ of Habeas Corpus as their life line to legality and freedom. Although controversial in its conception and implementation by US presidential administration, judiciary members have cordially interpreted cases of questionable detention and the legality of doing so. It is truly unfortunate when individuals are tossed into confinement illegally with no help and/or the promise of their restorative freedoms (ACLU, 2014).
Evolution of Habeas Corpus
Habeas Corpus or the “Great Writ” is widely considered to the preemptive cornerstone our human civil liberties within the United States jurisdiction as it is deeply rooted within common laws of social ordinance. Habeas corpus was generally conceived by the English as early as 1215 and signed into law by King John during his short tenner, however, formally recognized in 1679. Commonly re...
... middle of paper ...
...11-12). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
ICRC. (2014, April 4th). The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Retrieved from International Committee of the Red Cross: http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-0173.pdf
In Boumediene v, Bush, No. 06–1195 (United States Supreme Court December 5th, 2007).
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, No. 03—6696 (United States Spureme COurt June 28th, 2004).
Mortlock, D. (2010, July 1st). Definite Detention: The Scope of the President's Authority to Detain Enemy Combatants. Ebsco Host, pp. 375-404.
School, C. L. (2014, April 5th). Habeas Corpus. Retrieved from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus
Williams, F. J. (2014, April 4th). When Albany Challenged the President. Retrieved from New York State Archives: http://www.archives.nysed.gov/apt/magazine/archivesmag_winter09_williams.shtml
The book raises the importance of, and questions, the writ of habeas corpus. Carter used a writ of habeas corpus to get a federal trial. Many question the legality of Carter going into federal jurisdiction, when his case should have been heard before the Supreme Court of New Jersey. It was a gamble, but the federal judge gave fair justice to Carter and Artis. The State of New Jersey appealed the case all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the District Court’s ruling.
In Mark R. Levin’s book, THE LIBERTY AMENDMENTS, he proposes amendments to the Constitution called “The Liberty Amendments” (Levin 18). His hope for producing this book of proposed amendments is to “spur interest in and, ultimately, support for the state convention process.” (Levin 18). Levin states he undertook this project because he believes the way that the Constitution, as originally structured, “is the necessity and urgency of restoring constitutional republicanism and preserving the civil society from the growing authoritarianism of federal Leviathan” (Levin 1). Levin believes that the Congress operates in a way that was not intended by the Framers of our country, and has become oppressive to its people in its laws (Levin 3). He also
One of President Lincoln’s most notable infringements was his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Within months of taking the presidential oath, Lincoln ordered the suspension of habeas corpus, citing “supra-constitutional reasons for taking unilateral executive action.” Attorney General Edward Bates’ defense of Lincoln’s actions regarding habeas corpus in which he refers to it as a privilege rather than a guaranteed civil liberty serves as basis for proving the illegitimacy of this act. If the writ of habeas corpus, which protects citizens from unlawful imprisonment, is viewed in the manner that Bates (and Lincoln for that matter) refers to it, one of the most basic constitutional liberties of a right to trial can easily be deprived and can very well devolve into despotism later
If the right to habeas corpus is not being extended to the detainee, the majority judges are of the opinion that the branches such as executive and etc. except judicial, would have a whole control over Guantanamo Bay causing the judicial branch to have no position in reviewing the legal processes. The majority judges had stated
THESIS: Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona are Supreme Court cases that prove to be essential in protecting and strengthening individual rights in the United States.
Schultz, David, and John R. Vile. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. 710-712. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale Virtual Reference Library, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .
As more immigrants immigrated to the colonies and established lives in colonial America, the colonist began to incorporate their ideas of freedoms, rights and tolerance in legal documents. Some legal documents, such as Maryland’s Toleration Act, illustrate the colonists’ belief in freedom and rights often connected to democracy. Other official documents, for...
The plan to divide the government into three branches was proposed by James Madison, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He modeled the division from who he referred to as ‘the Perfect Governor,’ as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; He will save us.” http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm
"Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789." The Avalon Project. Yale Law School, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.
[4] Hickok, Eugene Jr., ed. The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding. Virginia: University Press of Virginia, 1991
The document I chose to write about is the United States Constitution. When the thirteen British colonies in North America declared their independence in 1776, they laid down that “governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The “colonies” had to establish a government, which would be the framework for the United States. The purpose of a written constitution is to define and therefore more specifically limit government powers. After the Articles of Confederation failed to work in the 13 colonies, the U.S. Constitution was created in 1787.
In the summer of 1787, delegates from the 13 states convened in Philadelphia and drafted a remarkable blueprint for self-government, the Constitution of the United States. The first draft set up a system of checks and balances that included a strong executive branch, a representative legislature and a federal judiciary. The Constitution was remarkable, but deeply flawed. For one thing, it did not include a specific declaration, or bill, of individual rights. It specified what the government could do but did not say what it could not do. For another, it did not apply to everyone. The "consent of the governed" meant propertied white men only. The Bill of Rights did not come from a desire to protect the liberties won in the American Revolution, but rather from a fear of the powers of the new federal government.
The Declaration of Independence includes four parts. The first part is the Preamble, which explains why the Continental Congress drew up the Declaration. They felt their reason should be explained to England.
There are many important factors in the Declaration of Independence, which enable the foundation of a new government. These range from describing grievances with England, to how government should be run differently, to the first statement of separation. The first step to the foundation of a new government is the uniting of a people in a common goal. Since all people were feeling violated by English soldiers, it was necessary to state these grievances in order to make people aware that they are not alone. When people learned that others felt the same as them emotion was stirred. The Declaration of Independence listed the grievances such as, “He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” The next important step to the foundation of a new government was to gain peoples ambition by showing how the government would be run if a new party took over. This goal was achieved by stating the rights of man. “We hold these truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This statement made people hopeful and feel kindly toward this new government. The final step in the preparation for a new government was separation from the old government. This was declared twice in the Declaration of Independence. In the beginning, “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, driving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and in the end, “that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved. In conclusion, the Declaration of Independence was able to motivate people, give them ambition, and made it simple for Americans to take action.
The Guantanamo detention facility has caused a major controversy between the White House and the Republican-Controlled Congress in recent years (Marshall 795). The upcoming election does not look hopeful in finding a resolution for this issue because both candidates completely disagree. Keeping Guantanamo open is not ideal for America’s financial, national security, or international relations interest; therefore, the facility should be shut down.