preview

Fifth Amendment Case Analysis

Good Essays
Although, anyone who is caught in a zone of conflict is denied the right to have a trial or attorney to prevent any terrorist attacks from happening one of the Supreme Court justices stated that a meaningful opportunity must be given to the individual because he was a U.S. citizen. Justice O’Connor and Kennedy both agreed that Hamdi had to be given an opportunity, so that he could present his case with factual evidence before a final decision was made. The Fifth Amendment contains a Due Process Clause, which is a safeguard from denying any individual the right to life, liberty, or any penalty of the government outside the law. Justice O’Connor and Kennedy stated that although Hamdi was arrested in a zone of conflict he was detained in the United States, which gave him a meaningful opportunity to be able to prove his argument with factual evidence. These justices stated that Hamdi had the opportunity to present evidence that proved why he was not an enemy combatant. Justice O’Connor had a plurality opinion were she stated that this case was different because most enemy combatants are not United States citizens, but Hamdi was an American citizen. She stated that this case was very different to past ones because those who are…show more content…
The Supreme Court did not confine itself to the judiciary power that is has it went beyond the powers of the congress when Hamdi was granted to have a trial. An enemy combatant that was in a zone of conflict that aimed to attack the United States was given the constitutional rights to prove his innocence when the Executive Branch states that enemies against the United States are denied a jurisdiction. The Supreme Court did not strictly interpret the laws of the constitution, which makes Hamdi v. Rumsfeld a case of judicial
Get Access