Habeas Corpus Script Introduction Ian: When our nation was created, our founding fathers laid out their beliefs on how our government was to be run, and the rights we as citizens were given, in the Constitution. Both: This important document has acted as the holy grail of American law for centuries. Ben: However, in the past and in recent years, some conflict has arisen as to its opinion of Habeas Corpus; Both: the right to create a writ to question the reason for your imprisonment. Ian: What does the constitution say on this matter, and how can we interpret its meanings for Habeas Corpus? To know this, we must think back to the logic of our founding fathers, and therefore protect Habeas Corpus. Ben: Contrary to what my opponent believes, there …show more content…
Ian: The writ of Habeas Corpus, which the constitution references, is from the old English law that protects your right to question your imprisonment. In doing so the founding fathers wanted to protect the people’s capability to object the government, defend their physical freedom, and prevent their unjust imprisonment. To ignore such a direct statement not only goes against the Constitution and the founding fathers who wrote it, but also against the right to protest without consequence. Thus, Habeas Corpus is a specifically protected right that must remain in …show more content…
It specifically outlines the necessary factors such as rebellion, invasion, or dangers to public safety that would incite the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Therefore, the Restriction of Habeas Corpus limits the destructive capabilities of social and political rebellions. On July 4th, 1861, President Lincoln addressed congress in regards to the necessity of Habeas Corpus. "We have a case of rebellion, and the public safety does require suspension of the writ. Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution itself, is silent as to which, or who, is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the framers of the instrument intended, that, in every case, the danger should run its course, until Congress could be called together; the very assembling of which might be prevented ... by the rebellion.” In this speech Lincoln elaborates on why he has equal power as congress in the limitation of Habeas Corpus. His intentions were to protect the public, and quell the rebellion. Lincoln would go on to suspend Habeas Corpus with the means of protecting the union, speeding up “Justice” against dissidents, and act for congress to defeat the confederate rebellion. This is a prime example as to the ideal means of revoking Habeas Corpus. Lincoln did so
...be added. They felt that if the rights of the people were not listed they would be infringed.Page 66R An example of a right they thought would be infringed upon was stated in Document 5 by Mercy Otis Warren, “There is no security in the system [under the proposed new U.S Constitution] either for the rights of [people with different ideas] or the liberty of the press”. This fear was directly addressed in the first amendment in which the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition are protected.Page 46R All these freedoms are used to express one’s self and express different ideas which means the first amendment prevents the government from suppressing ideas they do not agree with. The bill of right protects many basic rights and includes the 9th amendment in which it is stated that rights not listed in the Constitution are still retained by the people.
“The law on the side of freedom is of great advantage only when there is power to make that law respected”. This quote comes from Fredrick Douglas’ book, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, written in 1845. Fredrick Douglas who was born into slavery in 1818 had no understanding of freedom. However, his words shed light on the state of our country from the time he made this statement, but can be traced back fifty-eight years earlier to when the Constitution was drafted and debated over by fifty-five delegates in an attempt to create a document to found the laws of a new country upon. However, to eradicate the antiquated and barbaric system of slaver would be a bold step to set the nation apart, but it would take a strong argument and a courageous move by someone or a group to abolish what had enslaved thousands of innocent people within the borders of America for centuries. There was an opportunity for the law to be written within the Constitution, which would support this freedom Fredrick Douglas alluded to. However, the power, which controlled this law, would as Douglas stated, “make that law respected”.
The most blatant abuse of Lincoln's power was his suspension of habeas corpus. The suspension of this constitutional guarantee, by which a person could not be imprisoned indefinitely without being charges with some specific crime, around much opposition throughout the country. Although Lincoln himself made no concentrated efforts to suppress political oppositions, the repeal of habeas corpus enabled overzealous civil and military authorities to imprison thousands of people who were vocal in their opposition to the war against the South. During the war, in the case Ex parte Merryman, Chief Justice Taney ordered Lincoln to grant a writ of habeas corpus to a Southern agitator who had been arbitrarily jailed by military authorities in Maryland. Lincoln ignored the order. After the war, in the case Ex parte Milligan, the Supreme Court ruled that president could not suspend habeas corpus without the consent of Congress.
Although today in the twenty -first century we have more of a regulated federalism, the basic concepts of protection of individual rights along with free expression of ideas is still at the core of our current political philosophy. The founders intentions, primarily fueled by the Federalists, sought to create a national system under which the new area of democracy would thrive in the shadow of what they perceived to be an oppressive past with mother England.
The Founding Fathers accepted that the basic rights of individuals, rights to life, liberty, and private property, were not arranged by the government, and so when the Founders composed the Constitution, they were not surrendering new rights to people. It was just to create a steady form of representative republican government that would assure that the basic rights of mankind were less likely to be compacted upon. The objective of the Framers was not to make a extreme form of “democracy” (which the Founders reviled for its strong inclination to throw off the rule of law) in which everybody had the equal kind of say in government or in which nobody felt as if they were in a minority.
The United States Constitution has received much criticism, both before and after its ratification in 1789. A wide array of thinkers from across the ages of the republic have offered criticisms about the nature, scope, and even fine details of the Constitution, sometimes providing solutions they think better themselves. Truly, however, two major schools of criticisms arise: those condemning the implications of having a document like the Constitution supreme over the nation, and those condemning specific parts and clauses of the document itself. Both criticisms based on the view that the Constitution is pro-slavery and those arguing against the nationalist nature of the document are unfounded.
The amendment that raises my own eye is the Search and Seizures Clause of the Fourth Amendment. Like most of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment has its origins in 17th and 18th century, English common law. Unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment's origins can be traced precisely it arose out of a strong public reaction to three cases from the 1760s, two decided in England and one in the colonies. Two cases from England, “Entick vs. Carrington” and “Wilkes vs. Wood”, involved plaintiffs who produced pamphlets criticizing the government. During the arresting, officials seized books and papers from the plaintiff’s property. A court agreed that the officers’ actions constituted trespassing. The third case occurred within the colonies and involved “writs of assistance,” which permitted officials to search for smuggled goods without specify which house or what goods.
During the civil war, Lincoln blatantly disregarded the U.S. Constitution and adapted his own form of government. His first step was to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. With such rights thrown away, Lincoln arbitrarily imprisoned those who publicly disagreed with his principles.
The Declaration of Independence listed the grievances such as, “He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” The next important step to the foundation of a new government was to gain peoples ambition by showing how the government would be run if a new party took over. This goal was achieved by stating the rights of man. “We hold these truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This statement made people hopeful and feel kindly toward this new government.
Citizens of any country are given some rights as well as responsibilities, and the United States of America is no exception. The Constitution (US Const) of the USA as well as the first ten amendments, also known as “Bill of Rights”, defines the framework of it. It is a supreme law that defines how Federal Government works.
People have their own perspective of a government that they envision for their people. Thomas Jefferson has been the president of the United States and ruled under a monarch. Jefferson couldn’t tolerate the abuse from a monarch, so he rebelled against the British crown. In 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote The Declaration of Independence, and declared the colonies were free from British rule. Before he became the author of The Declaration of Independence, Jefferson was established “ as an ardent republican and revolutionary” (Jacobus 77). Jacobus states Jefferson is, “one of the most versatile Americans of any generation” (Jacobus 78). In The Declaration of Independence, Jefferson and the founding fathers envisioned a government that would govern the people, and the people would be free. The people must be governed with rights, Jefferson implies it’s the government’s duty to guide and secure the people, therefore, he believes the government’s obligation to the individual is more important than the individuals obligation to the state.
The book raises the importance of, and questions, the writ of habeas corpus. Carter used a writ of habeas corpus to get a federal trial. Many question the legality of Carter going into federal jurisdiction, when his case should have been heard before the Supreme Court of New Jersey. It was a gamble, but the federal judge gave fair justice to Carter and Artis. The State of New Jersey appealed the case all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the District Court’s ruling.
"Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority"(Maravillosa 1). These words said by Justice Byron White are the exact living dispute of the protection of the rights the United States Constitution and its Amendments promise us. The Sixth Amendment protects the rights of the people specifically in the courtroom and the conditions of law. The rights within the Sixth Amendment ensure the American people the rights of an impartial jury, the right to a lawyer, and demonstrate ability of the court system to change.
The men who wrote the American constitution agreed with Thomas Hobbes that humans were naturally evil. Therefore, they agreed that in order to prevent a dictatorship or monarchy, the citizens should have influence in the government. The writers wanted a more ideal constitution, but they realized evil human motives would never change. One of the main goals of the constitution was to create a balanced government that would allow the citizens to prevent each other from being corrupt. The writers wanted to give citizens liberty, but they did not want to give people so much liberty that they would have an uncontrollable amount of power. The writers agreed that a citizen’s influence in government would be proportionate to that individual’s property.
When a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty they are giving the option of Habeas corpus.