The Right Of Habeas Corpus

The Right Of Habeas Corpus
The war on terror seems to be a never ending story, especially with the current events such as the
beheading of two Americans by the terrorist group ISIS. These are barbaric people,whom have no
regards for human life, and they need to be stopped.Which brings me to the issue of habeas corpus,
and the rights or civil liberties of detainees who have been deemed enemy combatants. To
understand the right of habeas corpus in the context of the war on terror, you must first understand
the historical evolution of habeas corpus, including its English and American traditions,examine
times in U.S. history when habeas corpus was suspended and their applicability to the present,
closely analyze the relevance of habeas corpus to the contemporary U.S. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The provision of habeas corpus goes back for centuries. In America, the British colonists believed
very strongly in habeas corpus,for it was in England where the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 was
Civil Liberties and War on Terror 3
formalized , and where which the term has been used as far back as the 14th century.(Habeas
Corpus,2013). The Constitution of the United States made provisions concerning the writ, because
prior to the American Revolution, individuals were unfairly denied this civil liberty.(Habeas
Corpus,2013)
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia(Habeas Corpus,2013) states, " the Constitution of the
United States provides that "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" (Article 1, Section
9). (Habeas Corpus,2013 para 2). Though protested by Chief Justice Roger Taney but upheld by
Congress at the beginning of the Civil War in 1861,a suspension of habeas corpus in U.S. history
was issued by President Lincoln.(Habeas Corpus,2013) Of course this wasn't the last time that
prisoners' rights to habeas corpus caused a stir. In the 1950s and 1960s, prisoners
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

The Facts Of Padilla V. Case
The facts of Padilla v. Rumsfeld
The case is about detention of a citizen from the United States of America unlawfully without being
charged or tried. The issue in the case is whether the military officials violate the law through such
conducting such a detention unless the Congress authorizes them to do so. Jose Padilla, an
American, returned from Pakistan in 2002 when he was later arrested in O'Hare International
Airport in Chicago (Ann, 2004). At first, he was detained as a witness during the investigation that
the government conducted in the al Qaeda network. However, his detention was followed by a
declaration that he was an 'enemy combatant.' The Defense Department of Chicago, by declaring
him so implied that he could now be taken to prison without accessing an attorney or even the
courts. The main reason why he was arrested was that the FBI suspected that his return to the United
States of America was to continue carrying out criminal acts in the country.
Donald Newman, who represented him while he was a detainee as a 'material witness filed a habeas
corpus petition in court. The District Court of the United States of America, located in the southern
part of New York rules that the petitioner had decided to file the respective petition in spite of being
aware of the fact that the detainee had been taken to a big in the southern part of California. The
court found that the Defense Deaprtment had the authority and power to detain Padilla in the
position of an 'enemy

The Attack On American Soil Since Pearl Harbor
The 2001 terrorists attacks mark first attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Following the
attacks, the United States vowed to destroy al–Queda. Soon after, the United States would establish
Military Commissions to prosecute suspected terrorists. As the Military Commissions have evolved,
legal scholars and critics of military practices have challenged the constitutionality of the Military
Commissions since the beginning of the war. Those who participated in the terrorist attacks have
been detained and some are still awaiting trial. The day following his swearing in, President Obama
honored his vow to close Guantanamo Bay as his first order of business. He drafted E. O 13492,
which would close the detention center indefinitely. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The 2001 Terrorist attacks, orchestrated by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM), are and will forever
be stamped into the min of the American people. Prior to the attack, from April through June 2001,
al–Qaeda sent thirteen hijackers to the United States and supported their stay (Indictment, Section
19(a–f)). From May through September 10, 2001, the hijackers took flight classes, studied
commercial fight patterns, meeting with al Qaeda official overseas in efforts to plan the terrorist
attacks. The attacks were carried out on September 11th, 2001, when Mohamed Atta, Abdul Aziz al–
Omari, Wail al–shehri, Waleed al–Shehri and Satam al–Suqami flew two separate planes into the
two towers of the World Trade Center killing 2,976 people (Indictment Sections 20–22). After being
captured, KSM along wit four others was indicted in the United States district Court of Southern
New York. KSM was charged in violation of Title 18, Section 2332b(a) of the United States Code.
Title 18, Section 2332b(a) prohibits "conduct transcending national boundaries and in a
circumstance described in subsection (b). Section b states, "creates a substantial risk of serious
bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real
or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage
any structure, conveyance, or other

Adarand Constructors Case
Case: Adarand Constructors, Inc. v Pena Background: Adarand Constructors, Inc. were a
construction company specializing in guardrail work who submitted a bid for a contract by the
Department of Transportation. The DoT eventually gave the contract to Gonzales Construction
Company because they were certified as a minority business which the DoT was looking as it would
receive increased compensation for hiring a minority company. It was argued January 17th, 1995
and decided on June 12th, 1995. Question of Law: Can disadvantage be based on race alone? If
disadvantage can be based on race, then does that violate the Due Process Clause of the 5th
amendment? AIR: The action that triggered the suit was that Adarand Constructors, Inc. were denied
a contract by the DoT because of the increased compensation the contractor would receive if they
hired a company owned by a minority. The injury suffered by the litigant was that they were unable
to receive a government contract for work that they specialize in and that contract was handed to a
minority company even though the contractor would have given the contract to Adarand if not for
the added compensation offered for hiring ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Fullilove v Klutznick held that legislation enacted by Congress requiring at least 10% of federal
funds granted for local public works programs had to be used to hire minority businesses. The Court
held that this program was a legitimate use of Congressional power and did not have to act with
color–blindness in mind. Metro Broadcasting v FCC was a case that involved multiple complaints
by companies about the minority preference policies by the FCC. The Court held that the FCC acted
fairly by using these methods because they attempted to fix the problem of past discrimination and
that it did not violate congressional objectives for the

Habeas Corpus And The War On Terror
Habeas Corpus and the War on Terror
Joshua Beasley
POL201: American National Government
Mark Ladd
January 12, 2015
Habeas Corpus and the War on Terror Every person has the right to undergo a judicial hearing to
avoid illegal detention. However, if that person poses threat to the society and the state, there are
instances that the said right is overseen where these types of people are quickly detained after
capturing. The writ of Habeas Corpus gives the rights to the captured people to undergo judicial
trial. But there is also an article in the U.S. Constitution that states that the writ of Habeas Corpus
can only be lifted if the people being questioned in involved in a rebellion or pose a threat to the
safety of the public. That is why the administration of the previous U.S. President Bush detained all
of the people whom they tagged as terrorist and were captured in the war on Afghanistan in 2001.
The question now is to what extend must be the actions of an individual in order to undergo proper
trial hearing or to just be put in imprisonment without any hearings or trials done? The purpose of
this paper is to review issues within Habeas Corpus and GITMO, discuss how policies changing
over time affect the dynamic state of United States, and how these changes can make a big impact to
the future law making and practice of the country that is why this issue must be evaluated and
examined. The Legal Information Institute of the Cornell University Law School (n.d.) said

Georgia Voluntary Payment Doctrine
Georgia Voluntary Payment Doctrine
The Georgia Voluntary Payment Doctrine is a policy that has been used in Georgia law since the
19th Century. It has been exercised so long that this policy has codified a statute. Because it dates
back two centuries when business deals were completed on one's word, face–to–face and with a
hand shake, it causes one to question if it has outdated itself and should still be used to decide court
cases in today's business world. According to Dan Kolber of the Atlanta Business Chronicle, "the
statute says when money is paid "through ignorance of the law" and there is no fraud or mistake of
facts, then the payment is deemed voluntary and cannot be recovered. Filing a protest at the time of
payment does not ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, the plaintiffs were able to recover under the Georgia Health Care Act. The court found the
photocopying companies were agents of the hospital and were required under the Georgia Health
Care Act to limit the cost of copying and mailing records to a reasonable amount. The plaintiffs
therefore received payments of the charges deemed excessive. (Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw)
In the case S09G1664.SouthStar Energy Services, LLC v. Ellison et al. the Georgia Voluntary
Payment Doctrine was applied to the claims of the customers of Georgia Natural Gas. In 2006 after
the Natural Gas Consumer Relief Act was passed, the Georgia Natural Gas Company modified its
billing procedures for its customers. The company developed a new standard plan and altered the
method of computing the plan. (Forthcoming Opinions, SCOG Blog).
The customers, Charles Ellison and Susan Bresler represented by the Atlanta law firm Strickland
Brockington & Lewis sued the Natural Gas Company "under a private right of action in the Gas
Act." The plaintiffs sought to recoup their overpayments charged through the defendant's violations
of the Natural Gas Competition and Deregulation Act (Natural Gas Act). The defendant asked the
court to dismiss the case due to the plaintiff's failure to establish a reasonable claim on which
repayment should be given. A trial court granted a motion to dismiss the case, but an

Sterickland V. Taylor Case Summary
Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 122 S. Ct. 1237, 152 L. Ed. 2d 291 (2002) Facts: Mickens
(respondent) was indicted the planned homicide of Lobby, and he was sentenced to death. After five
years he recorded a request for a writ of habeas corpus. In the writ he asserted that he had been
denied of successful help of insight since one of his court–selected lawyers had an irreconcilable
circumstance, to be specific, his lead trial lawyer Saunders had spoken to Lobby at the season of the
homicide. Three weeks after Saunders had met with Corridor, who was then killed, Saunders was
selected as advice for Mickens. Saunders did not tell Mickens that he had spoken to Lobby, but
rather Mickens found out about the past representation when an assistant ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), we built up that keeping in mind the end goal to
set up incapable help of advice under the 6th Amendment, a respondent needs to build up that
insight's execution was equitably inadequate and that yet for that lacking execution, the trial result
would have been distinctive. There are exemptions to the general standard. In situations where a
barrier counsel has a dynamic irreconcilable situation, we assume that the trial result has without a
doubt been influenced, and we don't require the respondent to demonstrate likely impact. In
Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978), we held that a programmed inversion is proper when
the trial court does not ask into a numerous representation irreconcilable situation that is raised by
resistance counsel. In Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980), we didn't extend Holloway's
programmed inversion standard to situations where no complaint has been made to a different
representation circumstance. In those cases, a litigant must show that "an irreconcilable situation
really influenced the sufficiency of his representation." Sullivan additionally tended to the subject of
when the trial court has an obligation to ask into the legitimacy of various representation. It said
request is essential just when "the trial court knows or sensibly ought to realize that a specific clash
exists." For today's situation we should decide how the assumed irreconcilable circumstance agrees
with these cases. Here, guard counsel did not challenge his failure to speak to Mickens successfully,
and the trial court did not make the Sullivan–ordered investigation into the respectability of
numerous representation. Therefore, Mickens still had the weight of demonstrating that the
irreconcilable situation

Is Guantanamo Wrong
Is it ever acceptable to torture a man to the point of inflicting suicidal thoughts and actions on him?
This instance commonly takes place at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, or GTMO ("Gitmo").
Only 6 of the 166 current detainees have been formally charged, which leaves the possibility that
over 96% of the prisoners there are innocent. In fact, more men have died at Guantanamo than have
ever been convicted. GTMO's existence is a controversial topic because of the treatment of
detainees, various Supreme Court rulings, and the lasting impact on people who are lucky enough to
be released. The only way to ensure that guiltless people are not both physically and mentally
traumatized at Guantanamo Bay is to cease its unconstitutional and inhumane ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
The Supreme Court ruled that if someone is detained by the American government, then they are
entitled to basic constitutional rights, which does not allow the detainment of a person before
bringing them before a court or a judge. Since this injustice is taking place in Guantanamo, innocent
men are being placed there. Everyone being taken to GTMO is also protected from cruel and
unusual punishment regardless of what they have been accused of. Therefore, the CIA's use of
various torture methods and brutal interrogations are not acceptable by law. Lakhdar Boumediene
was one of many men who were taken away from their family and punished for a crime they did not
commit. He will forever be affected by the seven years of mental and physical abuse that he endured
at Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp. After 14 years, why is the U.S. still forcing faultless men to go
to a place that makes them want to end their

Habeas Corpus Essay
The Right of Habeas Corpus and the War on Terror
Introduction
September 11, 2001 changed the United States forever. This disastrous attack on the Pentagon and
the twin towers at the World Trade Center destroyed the lives of thousands of people. Over 3,000
people were killed, including hundreds or firefighters and policemen, many of which were never
found. The attackers were Islamic terrorists from Arab nations.
The war on terror declared by the Bush Administration, had become one of the most important
issues in the United States during that time and still is today. However, it did not always protect
those that needed to be protected. There was the detention of potential suspects who were held
without the right to habeas corpus. There ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
S. Constitution. The habeas corpus has only been officially suspended twice since its inception. In
1861, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the habeas corpus in Maryland and some Midwestern
states due to riots and threats that Maryland would secede from the Union. The second suspension of
habeas corpus took place in the early 1870's when President Ulysses S. Grand responded to civil
rights violations by the Ku Klux Klan (The Rutherford Institute).
Since the September 11th terrorists attacks, President Bush attempted several times to revoke the
writ of habeas corpus. An example would be denying the detainees of Guantanamo Bay habeas
corpus by granting him the power to be able to revoke habeas corpus for all citizens. By passing the
Military Commissions Act of 2006, habeas corpus was eliminated by allowing non–citizen enemy
combatants to be held indefinitely in a military prison without access to a lawyer (The Rutherford
Institute). Since that time the denial of habeas corpus has been challenged.
Habeas Corpus and the War on Terror
After the terrorist's attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, the Bush administration launched
the war on terror. The terms "illegal combatant" and enemy combatant" became popular during this
campaign. Bush wanted to let the world know that if you are not with the United States then it was
assumed you were on the side of the terrorists. The Administration's policies and methods were
questioned the Patriot Act was

The Great Writ of Liberty"
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 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Enemy Combatants are essentially individual that have been acquired and/or detained as a direct
involvement and/or supportive participation during war times against the American people.
(Mortlock, 2010, pp. 375–404)The labeling of Illegal Combatants refers to a person who engages in
combat "without" meeting the requirements according to the laws of war delineated within the Third
Geneva Convention (ICRC, 2014). The significance that habeas corpus plays for such combatants
allows for the challenging of a potential overly exerted authority that government may have
inadvertently placed within the power of the president. It relevance to such labeled individuals is
nothing short than the sense of freedom and hope that justice will not be unjust.
U.S. Supreme Court: Habeas Corpus Interpretation
The United States Congress has endowed the president with authoritative powers to use necessary
force against individuals posing significant threats found to have planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks in conjunction with September 11th atrocities. Those that have been
placed within the custody of the United States as a result of terrorist activities will often times file
Writs, including Habeas Corpus, to invoked the interest and interpretation of their situation by the
US Supreme Court Justice's . Since the tragic 9/11 attacks, judiciary judgments have often

the right of habeas corpus in the context of the war on...
Write an essay about the right of habeas corpus in the context of the war on terror. Your essay should
address the following subtopics:
Explain the historical evolution of habeas corpus, including its English and American traditions. The
explanation of its evolution within the American tradition should include the general meaning of the
right of habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution and its relationship to the protection of other civil
liberties. Provide examples from U.S. history of the suspension of habeas corpus and their
applicability to the present. Analyze the relevance of habeas corpus to the contemporary U.S.
situation during the war on terror, especially with respect to persons characterized by as enemy ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The thesis statement must tell readers what the essay will demonstrate. The paper must end with a
short paragraph that states a conclusion. The conclusion and thesis must be consistent. The paper
must logically develop the thesis in a way that leads to the conclusion, and that development must
be supported by facts, fully explained concepts and assertions, and persuasive reasoning. The paper
must address all subtopics outlined above. At least 20% of the essay must focus on subtopic five,
listed above (your evaluation of perspectives on the topic). Your paper must cite at least three
academic articles (excluding the course textbook) and at least four other kinds of sources (e.g.,
Supreme Court opinions, magazine or newspaper articles, the course textbook, and reliable websites
or videos). Use your own words. While brief quotes from sources may be used, altogether the total
amount of quoted text must be less than five percent of the body of your paper. When you use
someone else's words, they must be enclosed in quotation marks followed by an APA in–text short
citation (author, year, and page) to your source. The in–text citation must correspond to a full APA
citation for the source on the reference page at the end of the essay. When you express in your own
words someone else's ideas, arguments or facts, your statement must be followed by an APA in–text
short citation (author, year, and page) to your source. The

Court Proceeding Against Petitioners at the Women Health...
Procedural History: The Petitioners, who were antiabortion, Madsen and other protesters regularly
protested the Respondent which is the Women Health Center in Melbourne, Florida. The Women's
Health center sought and was granted by a trial court and injunction on several outcomes, which
restrained the Petitioners' ability to protest. The Petitioner's appeal to the Supreme Court which
claimed that the injunction restricted the protester's right of free speech that was protected under the
First Amendment of the Constitution. Statements of Facts: Judy Madsen and other protesters (the
Petitioners) protest abortion clinics run by the Women's Health Center (the Respondents). The
protesters picketed and gave some sidewalk counseling outside the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Issues: What is the appropriate standard of review for evaluating on free speech aimed at protecting
the rights of women seeking abortion services? Do the expanded provisions of the injunction
protecting the immediate surroundings of the clinic unconstitutionally restrict petitioner's free
speech rights? Do the restrictions establishing a buffer zone around the homes of clinic staff violated
the First Amendment? Answers of Holdings: Due to the consent–neutral restriction, the Court
determined that the terms of the injunction should be in which determining whether they burden no
more speech than is necessary to serve important state interests. The restrictions was upheld and
overturned in some parts. The Court found that the 36 foot buffer zone and the noise restrictions for
the private property around the clinic, then the 300 feet no approach zone, the protections around the
clinic staff homes, and then the objectionable imagery provision, claiming it restricted more speech
than was necessary to protect important state interests. Reasoning: Chief Justice Rehnquist
explained that the restrictions at issue were content–neutral. In order for it to be upheld, need only it
is limited in such a way to prohibit only enough speech as is necessary to serve some important
government purpose. The restrictions on the noise level of the 36 buffer zone was reasonable for
given the difficulty of patients and staff in

Supreme Court Case Study
Introduction In the summer of 2015, history was made in the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court of
the United States. The Court had made, with a 5–4 majority, a controversial ruling decreeing that
denying equal recognition to same–sex couples was in violation of the Equal Protections Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. Those on the minority cited concerns of judicial restraint, the
connection between marriage and procreation, and whether or not marriage is a Constitutional issue
in the first place. Nevertheless, equal recognition for same–sex couples became the law of the land.
History
James Obergefell and his partner John Arthur were legally married in the state of Maryland in 2013.
Nevertheless, not all states recognized same–sex ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The director of the Ohio Department of Health, Theodore Wymyslo, appealed to the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision. Obergefell subsequently filed a Petition for the Writ
of Certiorari with the Supreme Court (ACLU Ohio).
Philosophy and Jurisprudence: The Writ of Certiorari On January 16, 2014, the Supreme Court
granted certiorari, and hence agreed to hear the case, issuing the following statement:
The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the
following questions: Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between
two people of the same sex? Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out–
of–state? (Supreme Court of the United States, 2015 Jan.)
Thus, the case would revolve around the Equal Protections Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Obergefell v. Hodges would focus on answering the second question: whether or not the Fourteenth
Amendment requires a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when the
marriage was performed in a different state.
Oral Argumentation Mary Bonauto, winner of the MacArthur Genius Grant and a well–versed civil
rights lawyer represented Obergefell (Spangler 2015). The plaintiffs argued that to deny the right

The Pros And Cons Of The Fifth Amendment
The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty
or property without due process of law." Due process is one of many protections the Bill of Rights
gives citizens against the government, and being a 'process' the term suggests a procedure in its
method of protection. "The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words,
called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their
central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law
("legality") and provide fair procedures (Strauss, n.d.)." The Fifth Amendment limits the power of
the federal government and the Fourteenth Amendment specifically limits the power of state (and
local) governments.
Under the Fifth Amendment, the due process clause has two different aspects: Many of the modern
due process cases deal with what is called procedural due process (fair process, procedures), which
concerns the process by which legal proceedings are conducted. "Substantive due process refers to
the Supreme Court's examination of the reasons why the government passed a law or otherwise
acted in a manner denying a citizen or a group of citizens life, liberty, or property" (Lincoln
University, n.d.). The latter simply refers to the concern of which particular laws are applied during
legal proceedings. Due process procedures do not guarantee the result of government action will be
to a

Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror Essay
Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror
Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror Do you remember where you were on
September 11, 2001? I was working as a Personal Care Provider in a Senior Home at Newport, NJ.
Do you remember the feeling you felt when you saw the planes crashing on the Twin Towers in New
York? I remember feeling powerless. I wanted to do something to help out the people trapped in
those towers. It was a horrible feeling not to be able to help them. Right after that, President Bush
declared the War on Terror and many of our troop members were sent overseas to defend our
country and to try to catch those involved on this act of terror. Many people were detained and sent
to Guantanamo ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Good examples of this were President Abraham Lincoln September 24, 1862 and President George
W. Bush on October 17, 2006. Both presidents based their actions in the dangers of the war and both
have been strongly criticized for it.
The definition of "enemy combatant", which is another term used to refer a terrorist," according to
CSRT (Combatant Status Review Tribunal) is very broad and as follow:
"An enemy combatant for the purposes of this order shall mean an individual who was part of or
supporting Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the
Unites States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed a belligerent act
or who has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces" (Foley, 2007).
This definition is contrary to the principal derived in the U.S. Constitution, where the crimes cannot
be defined so broadly to the point where it can sweep a bunch of innocent people for a behavior that
can be understood as innocent. If people are detained under this definition I can see how many
innocent people can be detained without a trial and no communications with family members or
anyone at all.
At Guantanamo bay, the CSRT does not provide a trial but rather a hearing that is non–adversarial;
this involves process where the evidence is in favor of the

Age Discrimination in Madigan v. Levin Essay
Basics:
The Supreme Court case to be closely followed and reviewed for class this semester is Madigan v.
Levin. This is a case of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Lisa Madigan is
the petitioner, with Harvey N. Levin being the respondent. On Monday, March 18, 2013, the case
was granted and on Monday, October 7, 2013, it was argued. (OYEZ, Inc., 2013)
Facts of the Case: This is a case of age discrimination. On September 5, 2000, Harvey N. Levin was
hired as an Illinois Assistant District Attorney, but was then terminated a little under six years later
on May 12, 2006. Being that Levin was over the age of sixty, Levin believed this firing was due to
his gender and age. To support Levin's point, a female ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This case seemed to be simply put, but it was as if the counsel for the petitioner Michael A. Scodro
could not comprehend this completely.
In this case, a group of law professors filed an amicus brief, with the argument that jurisdiction was
lacking by the Seventh Circuit to decide on the issue at hand. The oral argument began with Scodro,
and it seemed as if the entire time the counsel was talking the Justices were bored and somewhat
annoyed with even having to hear this argument. There were many instances where Scodro was cut
off and it was apparent that the Court was fairly over this case before the argument was even heard.
Scodro began the petitioners argument by saying, "Congress has crafted a comprehensive body of
administrative and judicial procedures and remedies that are tailored specifically to combatting
discrimination against older workers." (OYEZ, Inc., 2013), to which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
produced the question, "What authority did the Seventh Circuit have to deal with the question under
the Age Discrimination Act?" (OYEZ, Inc., 2013). It was later decided that the Seventh Circuit did
not have any authority with the question brought forth. Scodro began to cite cases, but was soon
shot down by the Court.
Without giving a rundown of the entire oral argument, because it all ended up making the entire case
seem

Justice Scali Hernandez V. Mesa
Justice Scalia: Hernandez v. Mesa Antonin Scalia was born on March 11, 1936, in Trenton, New
Jersey. He received his A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg in
Switzerland. Following his graduation, Scalia attended Harvard Law School and received his L.L.B.
After law school, Scalia spent six years from 1961–1967 at a private firm in Cleveland, Ohio. In
1967, Scalia began serving as a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, and taught there until
1971. Between 1971 and 1977, Scalia served the federal government in several capacities, such as:
General Counsel of the Office of Telecommunications Policy, Chairman of the Administrative
Conference of the United States, and Assistant Attorney General for the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa arrived on the scene and detained one of Hernandez's friends at the
U.S. border. Hernandez fled to the Mexican side of the river and hid behind a pillar of a nearby
bride. Mesa, while standing on the U.S side of the border, shot and killed Sergio Hernandez. Six
months after Hernandez's death, Mesa was sued in Texas' federal district court by Hernandez's
parents. The suit claimed Mesa violated the Fourth and Fifth amendments of the U.S. Constitution
by using deadly force. Mesa's defense moved to dismiss and argued that Hernandez lacked
constitutional protection because he was an illegal alien, standing in Mexico when he was killed.
The district court determined through a formalist test that the Constitution's deadly–force protection
does not stretch across the border for non–citizens. Upon this decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part and held that the Fifth Amendment protections
against deadly force applied but not the Fourth Amendment protections. Furthermore, the court of
appeals also held that Mesa was not eligible for qualified immunity. According to ScotusBlog, the
Supreme Court Justices are inclined to look at three major questions when reviewing this case. (1)
Whether a formalist or functionalist analysis governs the extraterritorial application of the Fourth
Amendment's prohibition on unjustified deadly

The Issue Of Affirmative Action
On the contrary, supports of affirmative action feel that this law is still needed in America to help
places of higher education have more diversity which will benefit companies in the long run and it
also helps companies be more diverse and it helps them thrive. In the past few decades the number
of minorities and females in places of higher education and companies have been rising at a slow
rate. During 2012, the health care industry was suffering from lack of medical personal in the
medical field; however, "16% of the U.S. population is Latino and 14% is African American, these
groups constituted only 9% and 7%, respectively, of the total U.S. medical school enrollment in
2012 "(Graces, paragraph 2). The rate of minorities enrolled in medical school has been slowly
rising over the years. Having minorities and females in a company helps the company be more
diverse while also giving the company employees that can help the company thrive and be
successful. Supporters feel that this law benefits people who usually would not have a chance of
attending a place of higher education or be a part of a company an equal and fair chance. Supporters
of affirmative action feel that it is positive discrimination and that it benefits places of higher
education and companies not discriminate against females and minorities. A significant, amount of
court cases have been brought up to the Supreme Court dealing with affirmative action. One
important court case that deals with affirmative

Race, Gender, And Ethnicity
Shivani Amin
Professor Trefethen
Philosophy 5
4 November 2015
Race, Gender, and Ethnicity in American Law
The Virginia Military Institute was a higher education school in Virginia. It claimed to train the
leaders of the future, or "citizen–soldiers" and impart to its students great discipline; however, it
only enrolled male students. In 1996, the United States government sued the state of Virginia and
the Virginia Military Institute for its male–only policy as a violation of the Fourteenth amendment's
Equal Protection Clause. The District Court ruled in the school's favor. The Fourth Circuit
demanded Virginia to reverse this constitutional violation (Van Camp). In response to this
complaint, Virginia proposed a similar program for women: the Virginia Women's Institute for
Leadership. The District Court found that this plan satisfied the equal protection requirement, and
the Fourth Circuit affirmed that although these two institutions would differ in prestige (and the
historical benefit), they would still offer essentially similar educational opportunities. The United
States then appealed to the Supreme Court, and it raised the issue whether this new women's only
academy satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme court ruled,
in a 7–to–1 decision, that Virginia Military Institute's male–only policy was unconstitutional. In
order to not violate the Equal Protection clause of the amendment, VMI must make its program
available to women as well. VMI

The United States V. Virginia Case Study
When Virginia Military Institute (VMI) was founded in 1839, it was established as a male–only
institute. At this time and even up to the mid 1970's, most colleges and institutes were single sexed
schools. They, at that time, only wanted to teach and build young men to transform the world; not
women. The state arguably stated that women would not be able to hand the level of training
involved in going to VMI (Justia). However, once most other colleges and institutions opened
admissions, VMI still stood their ground as a male–only institution. The question they then faced
was whether or not their tradition to be male– only was constitutional?
The case of VMI went to the district courts, and was deemed to be a tradition and that this tradition
was accepted. However, the Fourth Circuit rejected the decision. They found the policy in which
they made admission decisions unconstitutional. In response Virginia tried coming up with a
women–only institution that would equal up to VMI. They introduced Virginia Women's Institute for
Leadership (VMIL) to the Fourth Circuit. Even though both programs did not require the same level
of skill, the Fourth Circuit accepted that the two institutions were equivalent to each other because
they offered comparable educational ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Virginia was a case involving the 14th amendment, specifically the Equal Protection clause. The
case went through the District court, and then to the Fourth Circuit. It was in response to the Fourth
Circuit's decision, where United States (the petitioner) brought the case to the Supreme Court
against Virginia (the respondent) about whether the creation of a women's–only institution that was
comparable to VMI's male–only institution satisfied the fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection
clause. The Supreme Court dismissed the Fourth Circuit's decisions and decided that the creation did
not satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment and was unconstitutional (United States v. Virginia et

POL 201 Week 5 Final Paper Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus,...
POL 201 Week 5 Final Paper Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror
http://homeworkmonster.com/downloads/pol–201–week–5–final–paper–civil–liberties–habeas–
corpus–war–terror/ POL 201 Week 5 Final Paper Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on
Terror
The final assignment for this course is a Final Paper. The purpose of the Final Paper is to give you
an opportunity to apply much of what you have learned about American national government to an
examination of civil liberties in the context of the war on terror. The Final Paper represents 20% of
the overall course grade.
Soon after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Bush administration developed a plan for
holding and interrogating captured prisoners. They were ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Bush as well as the views of the four dissenting justices).
6. Your evaluation of various perspectives on this topic expressed by justices of the Supreme Court,
leaders in other branches of government, and commentators in both the academic and popular
media. Your assessment should consider several perspectives on this topic, including :
a. The role of the President as commander–in–chief.
b. The role of Congress in determining when habeas corpus can be "suspended."
c. The role of the Supreme Court in protecting civil liberties, including the judicial philosophy
which should guide the Court in this role, and
d. Your personal philosophy, values or ideology about the balance between civil liberties and
national security in the context of an unending war on terror.
Follow these requirements when writing the Final Paper:
1. The body of the paper (excluding the title page and reference page) must be at least 1,500 words
long.
2. The paper must start with a short introductory paragraph which includes a clear thesis statement.
The thesis statement must tell readers what the essay will demonstrate.
3. The paper must end with a short paragraph that states a conclusion. The conclusion and thesis
must be consistent.
4. The paper must logically develop the thesis in a way that leads to the conclusion, and that
development must be supported by facts, fully

Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror Essay
POL 201
April 15, 2013
Civil liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror have been the forefront of Congress since
2001 with the terrorist
attack against The United States. Although there have been many attacks before, none have hit the
American people in
such a manner to question whether our civil liberties are at stake. As a member of the Armed Forces
I swore to support
and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic at all
cost. A sense of
pride, loyalty and commitment engulfs me when I hear the words for equal justice and liberty for all
when it comes to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
President Bush's action drew severe
criticism, mainly for the law's failure to specifically designate who in the United States will
determine who is and who is not an enemy combatant. This however was not the first time in the
history of the U.S. Constitution that it's guaranteed right to Habeas Corpus has been suspended
by an action of the President of the United States. In earlier years of the U.S. Civil War,
President Abraham Lincoln suspended writs of habeas corpus. Both presidents based their action
on the dangers of war, and both presidents faced sharp criticism for carrying out what many
believed to be an attack on the Constitution. President Bush suspended writs of habeas corpus

through his support and signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This bill granted
the President of the United States almost unlimited authority in establishing and conducting
military commissions to try persons held by the U.S. in the Global War on Terrorism. In addition,
the Act suspends the right of "unlawful enemy combatants" to present, or to have presented in
their behalf, writs of habeas corpus. "Members of volunteer corps, militias, and organized resistance
forces that are not part of
the Armed Forces are entitled to POW status if they meet the criteria specified in the treaty.
Groups that do not meet the standards are not entitled to POW status, and their members who
commit

High Level Of Judicial Activism
The American people have high expectations for the government, especially our court system. The
courts are expected to solve disputes through enforcing laws set forth by our legislators, and to do so
without bias. Typically, the courts fulfill their purpose in this way, but the task becomes much harder
when there is no precedent, or when a changing culture causes backlash to precedent. Furthermore, a
vague law or ideological question may also make an orderly dispute resolution a more difficult task
than the courts were designed to handle. As the constrained court view would suggest, these are
hurdles the courts must overcome in order to solve disputes and keep the integrity of the court
system. According to this view, judges don't ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This occurs as a court is able to overcome cultural constraint, but the constrained court view insists
that this cultural constraint is hard to overcome as the courts take into account the opinions of the
elite and the public in all of their decisions. All in all, the dynamic court view suggests that none of
these constraints: doctrinal, institutional, or cultural, are present. Meanwhile, the constrained court
view suggests that at least one of these constraints is present in order to ensure the promise of the
courts to solve disputes while also respecting public opinion, the other branches of government, and
doctrine. On balance, the case of Obergefell v Hodges illustrates the constrained court view,
suggesting that the Supreme Court is likely to be constrained when at least one of the constraints
mentioned above is in tact. A doctrinal constraint can be met through specific laws, an institutional
constraint can be met through inactive or ineffective legislative backlash, and finally, a cultural
constraint can be met through the court's adherence to cultural trends. The case of Obergefell v
Hodges began in early 2014 when a same–sex couple in Ohio believed their Constitutional rights
were being infringed upon. The couple included James Obergefell and John James who were legally
married in Maryland in 2013. Mr.James became terminally ill and died, but his

Sandra Day O'Conner
Sandra Day O'Connor
Sandra Day O'Connor had a very unpredictable political opinion. In many of her decisions, it was
difficult to decide which side she was on; for or against. Mrs. O'Connor was influential in many
monumental rulings on freedom. Mrs. O'Connor was also very influential in cases concerning
harassment and discrimination. Even though Mrs. O'Connor did not always vote how women felt
she should have, they still considered her to be a great role model.
Sandra Day O'Connor's influence was strong in the Supreme Court on the decision of many cases.
Sandra Day O'Connor was one of four justices to rule on the case of Bush v. Gore. This is a case
concerning the miscalculations of votes in four counties in the State of Florida. ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
There were a number of votes given for each Presidential candidate and Florida should have stood
by it.
Sandra Day O'Connor also took a stance on women's rights and abortion. Mrs. O'Connor's position
on abortion was the most controversial for her. Mrs. O'Connor sided with the majority in 1988 to
allow the states to narrow a woman's right to have an abortion by imposing legal restrictions. This
decision came only five years after Mrs. O'Connor disagreed with the Court concerning legalized
abortion. Mrs. O'Connor has strived to stay in balance with the Constitution, and her interpretation
of it. Mrs. O'Connor voted to uphold the decision of Roe v. Wade: woman's right to choose. Mrs.
O'Connor and four other justices upheld the determination of Roe v. Wade saying it's the woman's
right to abort prior to viability and restricting abortions after viability unless the woman's health is in
danger. I agree with the opinion that it should be left up to the woman whether or not she is going to
abort. However, I do strongly believe that only under extreme circumstances or severe health issues
to the fetus or mother, should an abortion even be considered. If a mother does not want the child,
there are plenty of people in the United States that would love to adopt it. In Oklahoma a fetus is
viable at twenty–three weeks pregnant. In my opinion, the definition of viable begins at conception.
A heart beat can be heard beginning at nine

Essay on The Presidential Election of 2000
The Presidential Election of 2000
It is hard to believe that it will be a year since the Bush vs. Gore campaign was in it's
final stages, or so we thought. The Bush vs. Gore campaign was at its climax in late
October of 2000. The people of the nation were casting their votes and the two leading
Candidates were neck and neck. The tension was sky high on Election Day, November
7th, 2000. Behold, we were to have a new president; well, possibly.
Election experts have called "evolution" instead of a "revolution" in changing the way
the country goes about its elections. Never in history has such controversy risen as in
Election 2000: Bush vs. Gore. Election 200 has raised "serious concerns over the
integrity ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It is called a Chad when the vote is punched but
still attached to the ballot in some way. As a result of these complications in
votes, debate was brought about as which votes were going to be counted and which
were not. Yet more complications of "Pregnant Chads" added fuel to the fire. A
pregnant chad is where an indentation, but not a perforation appears. Making the spot
look rounded or "pregnant". Also, it arose to who was trying or attempting to vote for
who. Thus, the debate over dimples and chads began.
However, experts such as Doug Lewis, executive director of the Election Center in

Houston, Texas, said we shouldn't be too alarmed. He says that the founders of the
Constitution purposely designed the process to be flawed because they didn't trust in a
centralized authority. He also says that a perfect election is one where none of the
imperfections go into the eyes or ears of the public. He believes that ballot design and
voting equipment should be re–examined and changed so that there should be more
"legal precision" about what is constituted a vote. In due course, the candidates, nor the
nation were satisfied with the way things were turning out. There was debate here and
controversy there, surrounded by confusion and disorganization. Thus, the vote
re–counts began. Recounts of the votes began in every state necessary. People were
sat down to examine and count every

Justice Against Sponsors Of Terrorism Act (JASTA)
The United States for over a decade now has been attempting to find appropriate routes of
compensating and protecting their citizens from terrorism. After the attacks on September 11, 2001
the legislature has made it one of their top priorities. The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act
(JASTA) was introduced in the Senate as S. 2040 by Senator John Cornyn (R–TX) on September
16, 2015. The bill was passed through the Senate on May 17, 2016 by a voice vote, passed through
the House of Representatives on September 9, 2016 by a voice vote, then vetoed by President
Barack Obama on September 23, 2016, only to have that veto overridden by the United States
Senate on September 28, 2016 by a margin of 97–1 and overridden by the United States ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Humanitarian Law Project, a 2010 Supreme Court case, held that criminalization is permitted under
the First Amendment, when there are efforts to provide advice to terrorists on how they can use
international law and other nonviolent conflict–resolution mechanisms, under 18 USC. § 2339
interpreting the "material support" law. Under the previous Supreme Court precedent, speech could
only be criminalized if that speech had the intent and likely effect of facilitating a terrorist or
terrorist group's illegal

How Should We Treat Non American Prisoners
How Should We Treat Non–American Prisoners in American Prisons
Casie Alaniz
Ashford University
Professor Beth Garcia
POL: 201 American National Government
The war on terror has changed how our country sees many things from travel, privacy rights,
security levels and a person's right to due process. The rights of accused terrorists have been
stripped due to the need for intelligence on future attacks as well as locations and persons involved
in the larger group. How does this loss of personal rights reflect on our country and the
fundamentals it was founded on?
Habeas corpus refers to the right to get direct access ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Under the Constitution the federal government can unquestionably suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus if the public safety requires it during times of rebellion or invasion. The issue is
whether Congress or the president holds this power. Historical perspective on that issue in the
context of the Civil War requires a study of the actions of Congress and the president, Lincoln 's
defense of his suspensions of the writ, and presidential and congressional dealings with and
reactions to each other. The relationship between Lincoln and Congress, like the power of
suspension, has received limited historical attention, with the only extensive treatment a 1907 article
by University of Wisconsin professor George Sellery.
The writ of habeas corpus provides individuals with protection against arbitrary and wrongful
imprisonment. But it does not necessarily protect other rights, such as the entitlement to a fair trial.
In our country anyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This seems to be
the case unless you are accused of terrorism, then you are held outside of the US and are not subject
to the same laws or privileges allowed within US jurisdiction.
Habeas corpus is important to the current situation because it has to do with the right of defendants
to be charged with a crime and tried for that crime in a timely manner.
Under the

Essay on The Presidential Election of 2000
The Bush Vs. Gore campaign was at its climax in late October of 2000.
The people of the nation were casting their votes, and the two leading candidates were neck to neck.
The tension was sky high on election day November 7, 2000. Behold, we were to have a new
president; so we thought.
Election experts have called for "evolution" instead of a "revolution" in
changing the way the country goes about its elections. Never in history has such controversy risen as
in the election 2000; Bush Vs. Gore.
Election 2000 has raised "serious concerns over the integrity of the voting system,"
Filled with demonstrations of voting machines and oversized punch–card ballots. The election was
ultimately made overcomplicated due ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Ultimately, the candidates, nor the nation were satisfied with the way things were turning out. There
was debate here and controversy there, surrounded by confusion and disorganization. Thus, the vote
re–counts began. Recounts of the votes began in every state necessary. People were sat down to
examine and count every vote in question for hours, days, and weeks at a time. Governor Bush, had
received 2,909,135 votes, and Vice President Gore, had received 2,907,351 votes, a winning
advantage of 1,784 for Governor Bush. You would figure that
Bush would victoriously win. However, Vice president Gore would not be still with this outcome.
His disappointment would be backed up by the misunderstanding of votes in the nation. I'm sure
there must have been many recounts in several if not all states. However, things didn't heat up or get
as difficult as they did in the state of Florida.
The Bush Vs. Gore campaign was at its climax in late October of 2000.
The people of the nation were casting their votes, and the two leading candidates were neck to neck.
The tension was sky high on election day November 7, 2000. Behold, we were to have a new
president; so we thought.
Election experts have called for "evolution" instead of a "revolution" in
changing the way the country goes about its elections. Never in history has such controversy risen as
in the election 2000; Bush

Essay on Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus
Charlotte
Ashford University
04//2013
POL 201
Instructor
Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror have all played a role throughout history.
Throughout history, the motivation of man's self interest has concluded in the domination of those
with little or no power in the absence of the rule of law. The war on terror presents an unpredictable
challenge for the United States since terrorists are apprehended and deprived of due process. Habeas
corpus is considered to be one of the most fundamental guarantees of personal liberty that we
cherished as a country since the inception of our Constitution. However, debates have arisen
regarding the proper ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
As a feature of common law, the right of Habeas corpus reflects the age old contest between
individual and the state. Habeas corpus empowers the individual in holding accountable the exercise
of the states power to influence liberty. Our founding fathers were well aware of the Magna Carta,
and its astonishing abilities to be something great especially James Madison who was the primary
architect of the American Bill of Rights. Greatly influenced by the potential of the agreement, James
Madison began his own interpretation. James Madison borrowed heavily from Article 39 of the
Magna Carta which limited the legislative power. Madison was a key player in growing that
particular article into the Bill of Rights. It was through Magna Carta and our founding fathers
interpretation of that article that the American courts used and still use today when interpreting the
rights of enemy combatants. (Halliday, 2011) September 24th 1862 Lincoln issued a proclamation
suspending the writs of Habeas corpus nationwide and specified whose rights would be suspended.
All traitors and rebel militias against the U.S. shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and
punishment. (Longley, 2012) In 1866 after the American Civil War had ended the Supreme Court
officially and fully restored Habeas corpus throughout the entire nation. That would not be the first
time a

Habeas Corpus Case Study
This paper will highlight the Habeas Corpus, the war on terror and how the Bush administration
detained prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp (GITMO), a prison contained on a naval
base that was built on land leased from Cuba. These prisoners' rights and civil liberties were
violated, and because they were detained in a facility beyond the jurisdiction of the U.S.
constitution, the Bush Administration has not been brought to justice. The Supreme Court should
have been required to protect the civil rights of the prisoners and the GITMO facility should have
been dismantled. The writ of habeas corpus has been referred to as the "most celebrated writ in
English law" (Chemerisky, 2001). The Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
For regular U.S. citizens, the government cannot detain a person without having a trial. The Military
Commission Act refused to allow the courts or any judge to have any jurisdiction, to consider or
hear the habeas corpus for the GITMO detainees as they were considered as enemy combatants.
This is in contrast to the Third Geneva Convention, which is relative to the treatment of prisoners of
war. In Boumediene v. Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that any unlawful prisoner held at
GITMO would be given the right under the U.S. Constitution to demand release and to appeal for
habeas corpus before a U.S. district court. The Supreme Court also removed seven sections from the
Military Commissions Act, which restricts the jurisdiction and justice regarding the GITMO
detainees. The Supreme Court claimed that the Detainees Treatment Act failed to be considered as a
substitute for the habeas

Edward Blum: The Civil Rights Movement
The Civil Rights Movement is a historic landmark of epic proportions. Dr. King's progress and
philosophies are studied extensively and continue to be a part of modern perceptions of peace. He
and his movement are an important part of the legacy of The United States of America. Yet, not all
are enthralled with the progress made by the activists of the 60s. Many conservatives believe the
need for many of theses laws has disappeared completely and at the forefront of this battle stands
Edward Blum. Edward Blum has dedicated much of his life to combat elements of the movement
head by King. Edward Blum's work has become an integral part of the attempt to undo progress
made by the Civil Rights Movement with cases such as Fisher V. University of Texas ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Vera Blum continued to bring cases to court and in 2013 Blum brought the case Shelby County V.
Holder. This case was centered around The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and officially questioned if
"the renewal of Section 5 of The Voting Rights Act under the constraints of 4(b) exceed Congress'
authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and therefore Tenth Amendment and
Article Four of the Constitution" ("Shelby County V. Holder"). While this is quite likely easily
understood by one who is familiar with the law, the vast majority are not so intimately acquainted
with the Constitution. Therefore, to grasp the very essence of this case requires a great deal of
unpacking. Upon unpacking the question it becomes easy to divide the question into two distinct
parts; what Blum's team is seeking to abolish and his explanation as to why. The purpose of this
paper simply requires an understanding of the former and allows us to focus on the important and
manageable two, as opposed to the overwhelming six. The question brought by Shelby County starts
with "Does the renewal of Section 5 of The Voting Rights Act under the constraints of 4(b) exceed
Congress' authority" this reveals the intent to either combat the renewal of Section 5 or to remove
"the constraints" put in place by Section 4(b) ("Shelby County V. Holder"). To challenge Section 5 is
to challenge the section of The Voting Rights Act that prohibits a very specific list of areas from
changing their voting

The Rights Of Voting And The Fourteenth Amendment
When the Supreme Court intervened in the case of Bush v. Gore, they violated the Equal Protection
Clause and changed the way we look at democracy.] There is presumably no other case that better
paints a picture of the injustice the Supreme Court caused during the 2000 presidential election.
Voting in America has developed throughout history. Originally, the Constitution did not specifically
define who had the right to vote until the 14th and 15th Amendment in which specified, "the right of
citizens of the United States to vote." The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to "all persons born
or naturalized in the United states," including all African Americans. It also refuses to "deny to any
person within its jurisdiction on the equal ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The law in Florida declares that for counties to approve their election entries has to be submitted
within a week of the election. So long as the counties could justify why their entries were late, they
could be accepted. On the deadline of November 14, only Volusia had finished their manual recount
while the other counties remained working. Each county presented justified reasonings as to why
they were late given the circumstances, though Katherine Harris, the Florida Secretary of State
declared none of the written statements justified being late. On November 18th, 2000 Harris
announced George Bush as the winner in the state of Florida. Various court decisions had been made
about the Presidential Election in Florida, and the Florida Supreme Court 4–3 demanded a statewide
recount. On December 9th, 2000 the United States Supreme Court voted a 5–4 stay on the Florida
recount. The Supreme Court violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, stating
"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of
Electors.." (Article II, § 1, clause 2) The Equal Protection Clause requires that voting rights will not
be infringed by protecting the act of voting or with unfair and unequal treatment after the votes have
been cast. Because of this, the court felt the 14th Amendment was being violated when their was no
structural way to determine voting decisions on a ballot. The Supreme Court stated it would be
impossible

Discrimination And Discrimination Of The United States Essay
For a long time, equality in the United States was just a figment of some hopeful people's
imaginations, and an impractical idea from their reality. There was separation in schools, restaurants,
and even workplaces. Along with separation there was racism and discrimination everywhere.
Discrimination is "the act of denying rights, benefits, justice, equitable treatment, or access to
facilities available to all others, to an individual or group of people because of their race, age,
gender, handicap or other defining characteristic."(Your Dictionary). President John F. Kennedy
issued Executive Order 10925 on March 6, 1961, which was the first reference to a term known as
"affirmative action". This order led to the creation of the Committee on Equal Employment
Opportunity, which requires that any projects that are federally funded must "take affirmative
action" to ensure that their workplaces are free of racial bias in the practices of employment and
hiring. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, is a branch of federal
government that followed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and its main purpose was to construe and
impose federal laws that deal with preventing discrimination. "To achieve these goals, the EEOC
holds hearings, administers equal employment opportunity laws for employees of the federal
government, issues regulations interpreting the law, and litigates discrimination cases, among other
things. The EEOC also accepts charges of discrimination from

The Case Of Fisher V. University Of Texas At Austin Essay
Writing in opinion of the court in the case of Fisher V. University of Texas at Austin (II). This case
had been previously heard by the Supreme Court resulting in a 7–1 decision that explained the
University had no grounds to apply any preference to racial minorities in the application or the
acceptance process. The case was reopened at both the fifth circuit court and the Supreme Court.
There will be seven justices presiding over this case, with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and
Justice Elena Kagan recusing herself. The question of making admission decisions on the basis of
race had been debated before in the Supreme Court, in the case of Grutter v. Bollinger. The
University of Michigan Law School had denied the admission of Barbara Grutter, a white female.
The Law School admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves
a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body." The court ruled in favor of the
University of Michigan, because no single factor eliminated a certain applicant from being denied
admission and race was seen as a factor that would help diversity in the law school. This case was
referred to in the discussion phase of this hearing. In the case, the plaintiff accused UT at Austin of
racially discriminating against her in the application and acceptance process. Under the first
application procedure that lasted up until 1997, two factors were taken into consideration, the
applicant's performance in

Habeas Corpus and the War on Terror Essay
How can we justify the war on terrorism abroad when the war was brought to our door steps with
very little remaining abroad but some small resistances? This may be a difficult question to answer
but it is one that can be easily found through understanding of the criminal mind and the way the
terrorists work. The main objective here is to show how the war is going and how the terrorists were
classified as such. I will also be providing information on Habeas Corpus both past and present as
well as what it means both in English and American traditions. Furthermore the way everything will
be written will answer very specific questions asked and I shall answer them.
The first portion of the essay is about the history of habeas corpus and how it ... Show more content
The reason they are still in prison is because congress said it would not spend another dime to get
them to where they need to be. Now how do we go about suspending or revoking the suspension of
habeas corpus. Our founding fathers thought of that as well so it is stated in the constitution how it
shall be suspended or revoked and this is done when the threat is over and there is no need to
capture enemy combatants or illegal combatants.
Habeas Corpus is a Latin phrase meaning "You have the body" this may sound a little odd but it just
means that we have a liberty and we have the right to a fair trial and we are to be presumed innocent
until proven guilty by a court of law and juries of my peer. This is the oldest right we have in the
Anglo–Saxon law. Interestingly enough, the violation of the writ of Habeas Corpus has not been the
most severe of the civil liberties granted to not only Americans but many other countries. The use
and misuse of this liberty is something that can be abused both by the good guys and the bad ones as
well. By using this as a bad guy who has not yet been convicted he will be running free until his
case is heard and found guilty.
There are many controversy regarding habeas corpus and the one that comes to mind is the one
regarding President Bush and the enemy combatants from Afghanistan and Iraq. When it comes to
the historical evolution of Habeas Corpus including its English and American traditions Habeas
corpus

2000 Election Problems
Presidential elections within the United States have always been an interesting insight into American
politics and can often divide the nation depending on which candidate you support. Until the most
recent election, many people would cite the Presidential Election of 2000 as one of the most divisive
as well as the strangest elections that we have had in modern history. This was due to the infamous
hanging chad from the butterfly ballots, disagreements in how to handle the recount between the
different branches of Florida's government, as well as the discrepancy between the popular vote and
the electoral vote. We now know that George W. Bush was eventually declared the winner but what
is truly important is how he managed to win the election ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Supreme Court to get involved. One of the many problems was the "butterfly ballot" used in Palm
Beach. This was a confusing ballot that was structured in a way that trying to vote for the
Democratic candidate could result in a vote for Al Gore, a vote for conservative Pat Buchanan, or
even both. This was because of the hole punch system being used which resulted in many ballots
being incorrectly punched or even punched twice due to the poor layout of the ballot. Another
problem was the excessive identification checks for minority groups while many white voters did
not have to show any identification as well as rumors of illegal road blocks to prevent liberals from
voting although that has not been proven. Due to these implications many citizens of Florida
demanded a recount but they wanted to only recount in the area that would likely increase the vote
for Al Gore and skip the places that could lead to Bush gaining more votes. Originally the Florida
Supreme Court wanted to allow the recounts to continue but Secretary of State Katherine Harris
ordered the recounts to stop however the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the recount should
continue despite Harris' order. It was unclear which branch of government could actually make the
final decision to stop or continue the recount which is what caused the Bush v. Gore case to be push
into the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the recount must be halted due to the
unfair method being used to recount the votes because it violated one of the founding principles' of
modern America that "all voters must be treated equally." Ultimately George Bush won Florida by a
margin of 537 votes and gained all of Florida's electoral votes which gave him a total of 271, one
more than what is required. Although George Bush won the electoral

Guantanamo Bay Case Study
As part of its Global War on Terror, many captured fighters were sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. If
our soldiers are taken there, is it likely that they––none of whom are citizens of the U.S.––will be
able to access the U.S. Federal Court System and wage litigation warfare? What is the background
and current status of this issue? Yes, the Scorpion fighters would have access to declare a "writ of
habeas corpus" and attempt to get a trial in the U.S. Federal Court System and attempt to wage
litigation warfare. However, before 2008 captured fighters held at Guantanamo Bay would have not
had access to the U.S. Federal Court System and would have had to rely on a military tribunal. In
2008 with the case of Boumediene v. Bush that changed. The U.S. Supreme court ruled that section
7 of the United States Military Commission Act (MCA) was unconstitutional. The MCA act of
2006, also known as HR–6166, was an act ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Bush (2008) it was ruled that this section was unconstitutional because of the rights of the detainees
that it restricted. The case was made on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene who was a naturalized
citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, being held in Guantanamo Bay by the United States. The
legality of Boumediene's detention was questioned, as well as the constitutionality of the Military
Commissions Act of 2006. It was determined on June 12, 2008, by a 5–4 majority vote that the
prisoners being held had the right to the habeas corpus un the United States Constitution, and that
the MCA was unconstitutional to suspend that right. Even though Cuba retained ultimate
sovereignty over the territory the prisoners were being held, the courts referred to the Insular Cases,
saying that the United States had "de fact" sovereignty over the territory because of their complete
control of it. Therefore, the aliens detained there as enemy combatants were entitled to the writ of
habeas corpus, protected in Article 1 Section 9 of the United States

Essay about The Bush versus Gore Crisis
People went to bed one night thinking that Gore had won, but when they woke up they found out
that bush had won with Florida's twenty–five electoral votes. It happened on November 7, 2000.
Bush charged that the recounts in Florida broke the rules of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A 7–2 majority ruled that the Florida
recount was being conducted unconstitutionally. The case was covered in controversy as the
Majority versus minority opinion on the redress was split along the lines of the more reactionary
justices voting in favor of Bush and the more liberal justices voting in favor of Gore. The minority
disunity noted these issues and other including the principle of equality and ... Show more content
However, the electoral vote was won by Bush–Cheney by 5 votes. The last time the president won
the electoral vote without winning the popular vote was in 1888. Because of the controversy over
the recount in Florida, the Gore campaign sued to have a manual recount.
Bush was born on July 6, 1946 in New Haven, Connecticut. Bush is the oldest son of his three
brothers and one sister. He grew up in Texas from the age of two. He came from a constitutional
inheritance with his grandfather. His mother was Barbara Pierce Bush. Before Bush became
president, he graduated from Yale University. He then spent less than six years in the Texas Air
National Guard. Then left the military to go to Harvard Business School.
Al Gore Jr. Worked as an environmental activist, He was born on March 31, 1948. He went to
college at Harvard University and Vanderbilt University. Al Gore is best known for his work
regarding environmental issues. Al Gore also some–what served in the military. He was a journalist
writing for The Army Flier, the base newspaper at Fort Tucker. The message emerging from a recent
research series on youth civic and political participation is clear: today's youth are not disjoined
from associational and small political life, but they are increasingly disenchanted with formal
political institutions and practices. Children and youth under 18 have made sententious strides in
recent years toward fuller involvement in democratic processes. These strides,

Miller Vs. Johnson Case
Miller v. Johnson 1995 was a United States Supreme Court Case that decided whether racial
gerrymandering was unconstitutional or not. This issue was very controversial, but before being able
to understand how the case affected the use of racial gerrymandering, one has to understand what
gerrymandering is. Every state is made up of different districts, and each district is entitled to their
own votes when it comes to elections. Gerrymandering is the manipulation of district boundaries in
a way that creates a political advantage in elections by putting a large group of people who are likely
to vote for a certain party in one district. In the case of Miller v. Johnson 1995, only one
congressional district in Georgia was primarily African–American between 1980 and 1990.
However, in 1990, Georgia's black population was at 27%, and many African–Americans felt that
they were being underrepresented. Georgia's General Assembly was prompted to re–draw district
boundaries in such a way that the black population would be more represented in terms of electoral
votes. Two drafts of boundaries were created that were subsequently denied by the Justice
Department. Finally, a draft was approved and an additional black–majority district was created.
However, the new plan was considered an abomination due to the way that it was geographically
positioned. The third district alone split eight counties and five municipalities and covered a territory
of approximately 6,784 square miles. It

The Right Of Habeas Corpus

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Holly Vega

More from Holly Vega (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Right Of Habeas Corpus