Abstract This paper explores the origins and history of habeascorpus, from its roots that predate the Magna Carta through to the present day, where it is being employed to the benefit of hundreds that wrongly languish in prison. The paper also explains the distinction between civil right and civilliberty and discusses which applies to habeascorpus. Lastly, the paper looks at the historic ups and downs of habeascorpus and discusses its unique place in the Constitution, separate from provisions contained in the Bill of Rights.
From the Paper "Rights and liberties need to be at their strongest when public support is at its weakest. Civil rights are decreed by law, civil liberties are God given, and the actions of legislatures are inevitably governed by the politics of the time. Habeas corpus is a civil liberty included among the "self evident truths" of the Declaration of Independence, and alone one of the civil liberties that can be suspended by acts of the government during times of crisis. The president judged by history as one of the best, sought to suspend these liberties in time of extreme crisis in the nation's young history. It was circumvented to increase support during a world war, to intern "dangerous" citizens during another, and to grant due process rights to perpetrators of the war for the new millennium. It is now freeing hundred of wrongly convicted people of a crime. The future of habeas corpus is uncertain in the short term, but solid in the future as all inalienable rights bestowed upon the common man by his creator."
Tags: legislature, supreme court, society, magna carta
Abstract The paper discusses the topic of the war on terrorism in America. Specifically it discusses how the American war on terrorism has created numerous threats to civilliberties in the USA. The paper states that many Americans fear the threat of another terrorist attack, and believe the government has the right to take any measures necessary to keep that from happening. The paper concludes that many of the government's tactics threaten the civilliberties of Americans, a topic that is often overlooked in the war on terrorism.
From the Paper "However, there are many areas where experts show American civil liberties are being threatened or decreased. For example, recent Congressional inquiries and votes indicate the concern over loss of civil liberties when it comes to phone surveillance and records. After 9/11, the US Patriot Act modified many rules and regulations regarding gathering foreign and domestic intelligence. One of the most controversial was the ability to wiretap or listen to phone, wireless phone, and email communications. Before 9/11, there were stringent guidelines on what type of communication could be wiretapped, and suspects who were wiretapped had to be notified if the evidence collected could be used against them in court. The Patriot Act relaxed these rules, making it much easier for agencies to wiretap both foreign and domestic phone calls, with little or no provocation. This means that the government essentially can listen to any conversation they want to, whether they believe it has a relationship to the war on terror, or not, which is clearly a violation of the right to privacy guaranteed in the Constitution (Etzioni 52). A recent bill would have absolved communications companies of any liability in these wiretapping cases, but Congress defeated that bill, indicating the growing concern over the loss of civil liberties."
Abstract This paper examines Abraham Lincoln's actions regarding habeascorpus during the Civil War. The paper describes how Lincoln suspended the writ of habeascorpus so that anti-Unionists might be summarily arrested. The paper presents various cases of arrests and imprisonments that occurred due to Lincoln's actions. Civil rights issues are discussed as are reactions to Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeascorpus.
From the Paper "Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was considered by some to be the act of a traitor. Habeas corpus protects individuals from arbitrary imprisonment by the government and is for all intents and purposes, a right provided by the Constitution. Lincoln's suspension raised questions about civil rights that ring familiar in light of the Patriot Act. While Lincoln defended his actions as preventative measures when the country was in a time of war, many individuals challenged his decision. In a historical context, Lincoln's action was not a coup d??tat, but rather an act intended to prevent tension that existed within the country from growing out of control."
Abstract This paper looks at the history of HabeasCorpus and the role it plays in the law today. It looks at how the scope of HabeasCorpus has changed over time, what HabeasCorpus came to mean in English courts, and what it meant to the U.S. founding fathers when they included it in the Constitution. The paper then focuses on the history of HabeasCorpus in the U.S. by looking at how the Civil War, World War II, and Supreme Court rulings have affected and influenced its implementation. The paper also looks at limitations of HabeasCorpus and how Supreme Court rulings regarding HabeasCorpus have also affected the United States form of government.
Outline
The Start of HabeasCorpus Early Beginnings
American HabeasCorpus HabeasCorpus Act
HabeasCorpus HabeasCorpus Defined
The Great Writ
Judiciary Act of 1789
Suspension of HabeasCorpus Suspension by Lincoln
Testing the Issue
Seizing Power
After the Civil War
Resolution in 1924
Influence on World War II
Expansion in 1942
Abuse of the Writ
Total Exhaustion
1991 Decision
Limitations
Death Penalty and the Supreme Court
Effect on the Government
The Court's Decision
California and HR 4167
Handling of HabeasCorpus Proceedings
California HabeasCorpus Resource Center
Requirements for Habeas Counsel
2255's Original Purpose
Delay in Finality
Modern Day Sense
From the Paper "Habeas corpus was first introduced in England in 1215 when the Magna Carta was written. When habeas corpus was first used, it had a limited range. Over time the scope expanded due to jurisdictional disputes between the superior courts and local courts of England. Habeas corpus cum causa was the form of habeas corpus used by the courts which "compelled the sheriff to produce the prisoner who was the subject of the courts" jurisdictional dispute (Orye, law review).? A series of crucial cases which began with the Case of the Five Knights and concluded with the Chamber's Case questioned the ?validity of commitments, previously an incidental effect of the writ, making it a major object (Orye, law review).?"
Abstract This paper examines President Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeascorpus throughout the Civil War. Habeascorpus is the right not to be held or imprisoned without being charged and given a trial. It looks at how Lincoln suspended the right in varying degrees throughout the war and used as a way to protect the Union from insurgents within. It explores how some have charged Lincoln with dictatorship and circumventing the Constitution for doing this. The paper takes on the argument that Lincoln was acting justly and in the best interest of his country. The paper explains each act of suspension, outlines what caused the suspension of the writ of habeascorpus, the Act that suspended the writ and what the stipulations were, and also what the outcome was. In addition, it examines the some arrests under the suspension, popular opinion, and the opinion of a Supreme Court judge. The thesis is that President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeascorpus for the good of the nation and to protect it from those who wished to do the government harm, and in doing so, held this nation together in its most trying time.
Outline
Lincoln Acts to Protect the Capitol
Getting a Hold on Suspending HabeasCorpus The Policy Questioned
Lincoln Answers for His Actions
Expanding the Suspension
Congress Supports the President
Lincoln Defends His Policy
HabeasCorpus Suspended Nationwide
The Last Suspension Proclamation
From the Paper "As the American Civil War began to come to a rolling boil President Lincoln was faced not only with rebels in the South but insurgents within the Union as well. There was no question how to deal with the rebels in the South who took up arms against the government. But those in the North who attacked their government in other ways were another, more difficult issue. One effective way to deal with these insurgents was to detain them for their own safety and for the safety of the nation. But many times this proved difficult because the insurgents could not be formally charged and without being formally charge the writ of habeas corpus allows them not to be detained."
Tags: merryman, rights, taney, congress, north, south
Abstract The paper attempts to demonstrate that the USA Patriot Act is a prudent and necessary legislation to protect the United States from the real threat of terrorism. The paper argues that the perceived threat to our civilliberties is unfounded. The paper compares the provisions of the Act to truly outrageous actions taken in the past by a government in crisis, such as the Alien Sedition Acts of 1798 and the suspension of habeascorpus by President Lincoln.
From the Paper "The USA Patriot Act is the often discussed, much maligned, and little understood legislation that was put forward in response to the tragic aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center in New York, heavily damaged the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and left a crater in Shanksville, Pennsylvania as a testimony to the heroics of ordinary citizens faced with the new reality of life during the first war of this young century. This abbreviated name wrongly suggests a simple law, and has been the target of many groups citing the end of personal civil liberties and the coming of a new police state. Nothing could be farther from the truth, in fact, this Act is extremely complex, far less reactionary that previous laws enacted during wartime, and fundamentally necessary to protect our fellow citizens from another early morning tragedy to unfold on live television."
Abstract The paper discusses "HabeasCorpus", a comedy written in the early 1970s by a British playwright Alan Bennett. The play is set in the 1960s Britain, the era of sexual revolution and turmoil in society. The play is set up in a typical British town in the 1960s. The paper analyzes how, on the surface it is a farce about sexual relations, and when it was first shown in the early 1970s, it must have been somewhat daring, even scandalous.
Abstract The paper reviews the play "HabeasCorpus" by British playwright Alan Bennett. This two acts play, written in 1973 and set in the 1960s explores homosexuality.
Abstract In this article, the writer notes that, following the events of September 11th, the Patriot Act was developed in an effort to prevent further terrorism from occurring. The writer then argues that the nature of the Patriot Act has been called into question because of concerns that the Act interferes with the civilliberties of Americans. The purpose of this discussion is to expound upon why the Patriot Act interferes with the CivilLiberties afforded Americans via the Bill of Rights. The writer concludes that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and should be amended to ensure that the civilliberties of persons living in America are not violated.
Outline:
Introduction
The Patriot Act and CivilLiberties Conclusion
From the Paper "There are several factors that contribute to the Patriot Act's infringement upon civil liberties. The primary problem with the Patriot Act involves the right to privacy. Under the Patriot Act, the federal government is given the right to search medical records, tax records, and even the books that an individual borrows from the library. In addition, the government also has the ability to conduct surveillance without permission. The government can also conduct secret searches of your home without telling you. All of these aforementioned invasions of privacy can occur under the patriot act without probable cause.
"These policies established by the patriot act are a direct contradiction with some of the statutes that were established in the Bill of Rights."
Abstract The United States is a country founded on the notion of protected civilliberties. After all, the pioneers who came to the country in the 18th century were themselves fleeing from persecution and seeking the freedom to practice their religious beliefs and the right to discuss their diverging views in public. Today, these freedoms are protected by law under the Bill of Rights. They serve to protect individual freedoms from encroachment by the government. It is largely through the Bill of Rights that the Constitution limits the government's powers over the rights of individuals. This paper examines the dual role the government takes in approaching such freedoms. First is the passive role, where the law prescribes that the government limit its role in matters of individual civilliberties. This includes the hands-off policy the government is supposed to take in matters such as freedom of the press and privacy rights. The second part of the paper then examines the government's more active role in enabling people to practice their civilliberties. This includes affirmative action policies that help address the historic inequality in the treatment of minorities and women.
From the Paper "In cases of freedom of speech, for example, many government bodies and private citizens have raised concerns regarding the effects of violent media on viewers, particularly children. Most proponents of media regulations are also interested in protecting free speech and the free circulation of ideas. However, critics like Roger Kimball and his followers maintain that brutal and violent images in media generate violence within their viewers, by corrupting individual morals. Because of this, Kimball maintains that the government "also has an interest in protecting the moral sensibility of its citizens, especially the young" (21)."
Abstract This paper examines some of the most controversial parts of the USA PATRIOT Act and attempts to determine if civilliberties really are being compromised. The author expresses the opinion that Americans should have to give up as few of these liberties as possible, but in the society that we live in today, Americans should be prepared to accept some advancements in law enforcement and be willing to forfeit a few freedoms for the sake of safety and security.
Background and Significance
Brief Overview of the Patriot Act
The Problem - Discussion and Analysis
Are CivilLiberties at Risk?
The Solution - New Legislation
From the Paper "On October 24, 2001 the One Hundred and Seventh Congress of the United States of America passed Public Law 107-56, also known as Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, or, the USA PATRIOT Act. The Patriot Act was passed in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, when terrorist group Al Qaeda hijacked passenger aircrafts and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Thousands of people were killed or injured in these attacks, and the government was under enormous pressure to develop legislation to prevent future attacks (Etzioni, 2004). The Patriot Act, which has proven to be some of the most controversial legislation drafted in our time, passed just six weeks after the September 11 attacks. The Act passed by an overwhelming margin, the vote in the House of Representatives was 356-66 and the vote in the Senate as an overwhelming 98-1. The Patriot Act was passed with very little public debate (Chang, 2001)."
Abstract This paper examines, "The State of CivilLiberties: One Year Later", a report published by the Center for Constitutional Rights, which discusses a series of Executive Orders that indirectly seek to eliminate some of the most important aspects of American Constitutional rights. It looks at how these Executive Orders, which have been enacted since September 11, 2001, according to the CCR, are a threat to the civil rights that belong to every American. It shows how the orders enacted to fight the war on terrorism have nullified the rights of the people, as well as the responsibilities of the federal government. In particular, it discusses how the CCR is specifically concerned about the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution and the encroachments that certain orders have made on these Amendments.
From the Paper "The CCR believes that the most disturbing act to undermine the separation of powers was the establishment of military tribunals to try accused terrorists. According the CCR, the Executive has taken on "the most fundamental role of the judicial branch... it gives the President the power to decide who will be tried under the system, to create rules by which a trial will proceed" (CCR 6). The report states that all of the key roles in the military tribunal process are to be ?filled by military officers acting upon designation of the President.? In such trails, evidence will be presented as officers acting like prosecutors and will be judged by officers acting as judges. In addition, the accused's attorney must be found eligible for access to information classified as "secret" under the Defense Department guidelines."
Tags: fourth, fifth, sixth, ammendments, terrorism, rights
Abstract It has been asserted by some people that extending civilliberties, as well as participatory decision-making (that is, allowing workers to take part in managerial decisions) to the workplace would improve the American workplace. This paper examines this idea in relation to Nancy Ehrenreich's book "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America".
Abstract This paper will discuss the ramifications of September 11th on American civilliberties. By presenting such legislations as the Patriot Act, we can see how nationalism after the attack has limited American freedoms of speech and action.
Abstract This paper takes a look at how the US Founding Fathers were faced with a number of important issues as they debated the form and content of the Constitution, not the least of which was ensuring that their own individual interests would be addressed in the new country. According to the paper, although it represented the work of many minds, the primary author of the first ten amendments to the Constitution was James Madison, but his reasons for advocating these civilliberties was substantially different than many modern observers might believe.
Outline:
Introduction
Review and Discussion
Background and Overview
Perspectives Articulated at the Constitutional Convention
The Changing Views of James Madison
Analysis and Discussion
Implications of the Ratification of the Constitution without a Bill of Rights
Conclusion
From the Paper "Moreover, in spite of significant across-the-board gains for many formerly disenfranchised citizens during the latter half of the 20th century, the Bill of Rights continues to experience the ebb and flow of political thought in the nation today. Indeed, the civil liberties contained in the Bill of Rights have been subject to the arbitrary vicissitudes of executive whim and fancy more than once in the nation's history, and the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act is just a recent example of how these rights can be adversely affected even with the constitutional guarantees therein contained. In the final analysis, then, it is reasonable to say that James Madison did a better job of executing his responsibilities at the Constitutional Convention and thereafter than many of his peers could have done, and the implications of his failure to do so have also been the subject of much scholarly debate over the years and these issues are discussed further below."
