Habeas Corpus Essay
I would like to begin my paper when we go back in the time of war when we would hold people prisoner due to the crime or citizenship.
What makes it right that due to location of the base makes it ok to not detain an illegal immigrant. I Would have to say that the courts did rule the right way in some regards to if you are not in the united states then your constitutional rights do not apply. If you are an immigrant in the united states how is it possible that they have our constitutional rights when they do not belong here.The articles that I had researched had touched on a time in 2002, When the supreme court was able to reverse a ruling for a detained alien due to where he was being detained at Guantanamo. There were five men that were detained in Guantanamo and due to the U.
S. leases the land from Cuba the rule of they are aliens and did not have the rights as citizen in the United States did not apply to them. The supreme court had to give them the same treatment due to location of the detainees. In 2006 the Military Commissions Act (MCA) this act will eliminate the courts to hear habeas applications from detainees who have been designated (according to procedures established in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005) They would then petition the courts again stating that this did not pertain to them and if it was unconstitutional that it was then called the Suspension Clause.
This Clause basically states that if found to be rebellion and harmful to the public safety shall it be suspended Overall the D.C circuit did rule in both the favor for the detainee and the MCA and Suspension Clause. That basically if you are not in the United States then your rights do not apply in foreign countries.In my research I came across some videos that we had to use in class. I found these three videos to be helpful in this paper. You will see that in these videos that we can now have the chance to learn that the supreme court is who tells the states what they can do.
That there is about 100 new cases delivered to the 9 justices that make up the supreme court. Each justice gets 100 case to review to decide what case is worthy to be heard in the supreme court. Once they have decided on their cases they then sit together weekly as a group to go over and see if an answer can be reached. The petitions will get some consideration but a denial has no presidential value.
This court is not like your area or district court. You cannot just bring a case there and expect it to be heard. these cases are mailed to the courts from other courts that either could not reach a decision or was appealed. This is a public court where you a lawyer will have either 1 hour or 30 minutes to resent your case and ask questions for the 9 justices. The main goal of the supreme court is to act in the best interest of the people and the constitution. Once a opinion is reached it will take 4 weeks to draft a copy for the other justice to review and add to it before it is final and made to the public by the press and news (SCOTUS Video part 1-3).
As stated in our books that the Judicial activism is a school of thought that describes the role of the judges to protect the rights of the individuals and the legislative bodies. If they act in any way that would violate these rights the judges are there to strike it down. As I stated before the justice of the supreme courts are there to protect the rights of people and their constitutional rights (Levin-Waldman. 2012). If for once our judicial system took all that it has learned and tried for once to make sense of the action at hand would we ever have gone to war, or needed to go to a supreme court. These are some questions that we may never have answered in our life time. I would have to say that this book of ours has taught me that our judicial system has many levels and to get to higher levels has a certain process that a case has to go through to get a different outcome. I would have to say that a lot of cases go to the supreme court due to they feel that something was overlooked and want an new set of eyes to look at and see if the outcome will go in their favor verses the favor of the courts.
As I looked through some suggested articles I came across one that talked about the different branches of government. This article talks about how the government had operated with war and terror. Certain governments would take action and the other would sit back and watched what happen. This is to see if one was better than the other. The Supreme Court has said that Congress has an indispensable role to play in establishing democratically legitimate policy in counterterrorism.
Democratic theory tells us, moreover, that whatever actions the executive was able to undertake on its own authority in the immediate emergency of 9/11, and indeed whatever inherent powers it might permanently possess, in fact democracy is better off when the political branches work in concert to create a long term policy. So where is the legislation, passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, on the multiple topics that make up a full and complete counterterrorism policy for the country?( Anderson, K. 2006) This article has a lot of information that what one president did is better than the other. It leads me to think that our presidents were always second guessing their ideas. If it did not work with the one before you, then you did not do that idea again.
I think if one of them would relook at the idea that was set forth they might of been able to apply it in a better manner. I call this the live and learn type of government. I have seen that happen with our system. One president had us in good hands and when his term was up the next one had to mess with the system to give his name a better sound or reason to be in office.
To Sum up my paper I would have to say that what we did many years ago was a good idea then and it helped keep the aliens out of our country. If we had kept some of the founding fathers idea we may of been in a better place for our government and wars. I do not agree with hold people against their own will. I am against illegal immigrants coming to our country and expecting to receive everything that us United States citizen work our tails off to keep. In a time of war and hold our soldiers I do not agree with. I have heard and lost many prisoners of war that were held in other countries and later killed. I think that we needa government that is going to see that we need to stop fixing other countries and keep our men and woman of the military safe and with their family.
War is not an answer to anything. It is not going to make our problems go a way it is only going to make it bigger. We need a government that will see that idea verse the war is good.
It is not.References:Anderson, K. (2006). Law and Terror. Policy Review, (139), 3-24 Levin-Waldman. (2012). American national government.
San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education Inc.Oyez. (2008). Boumediene v.
Bush. IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_06_1195 SCOTUS Video Part 1 [Video]. Available from http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=_6Noye3MKkg (n.d.). SCOTUS Video Part 2 [Video].
Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cW4nNFyym8&feature=relmfu (n.d.
). SCOTUS Video Part 3 [Video]. Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpdn_rFvJqA&feature=relmfu
