b ush v. f ranklin “if there are people inside our country who are talking with al-qaida, we want...
TRANSCRIPT
BUSH V. FRANKLIN
“If there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaida, we want to know about it because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.”
“He who would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.”
• End the Crisis ASAP• Protect the USA
domestically and abroad• Prevent treason/sabotage• Maintain law and order• Provide for displaced ppl• Govt. powers protected• Provide nat. security
• 1st Amendment• 3rd Amendment• 4th Amendment• 8th Amendment• Habeas Corpus• Right to Privacy• Due Process• Rule of law• 2nd Amendment
PRIZE CASES (1863)
Lincoln blockades Southern ports. No approval of Congress. USSC: Action was constitutional
CINC State of war exists President can respond to an insurrection/state of
war.
KOREMATSU V U.S. (1944) FDR: WWII Internment
camps
USSC: Internment camps are constitutional.
WHY?
Pressing military necessity
Too hard to separate loyal from disloyal
Fear of espionage or sabotage
Necessary during war to protect coast
PRESIDENTIAL POWERS V. CIVIL RIGHTS Pressing military
necessity
Too hard to separate loyal from disloyal
Fear of espionage or sabotage
Necessary during war to protect coast
What are some problems with these justifications?...
MANZANAR: MASS EVACUATION IN PERSPECTIVE
WHY EVACUATED?War time
fear/hysteriaAnxiety of whites on
coastHigh anti-Japanese
sentiment after Pearl Harbor.
History of racism against ethnic Asians on West Coast.
MANZANAR: MASS EVACUATION IN PERSPECTIVE
No military necessityNo sabotageNo proven
espionageDec 1941: U.S.
military determined Japan could not attack Ca. coast.
Japanese-Am. never removed from Hawaii
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND TUBE V. SAWYER (1952)
HISTORY Korean War Truman seizes steel mills due to strike
USSC RULING Seizure was unconst. President cannot make a law (legislating). Congress gave no authority, explicitly or
implicitly Taft-Hartley Act: 80-day cooling-off period
before strike. No constitutional authority. Refused to broadly interpret CINC powers.
HAMDI V. RUMSFELD• Term: 2000-2009 Facts of the Case In the fall of 2001, Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen, was arrested by the United States
military in Afghanistan. He was accused of fighting for the Taliban against the U.S., declared an "enemy combatant,“
5th Amendment, right to Due Process No access to attorney or trial Executive power to detain "enemy combatants" and thus restrict their access to the court
system.
Question 1. Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by
holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States?
2. Does the separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to Executive Branch determinations that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant"?
Conclusion Decision: YES and NO. 6 votes for Hamdi, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process 1. Although Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process
guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.
2. The plurality rejected the government's argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge. Hamdi had the right to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant.