More handpicked essays just for you.
Executive power of president of united states
What power does the executive branch have
Essays on humanitarian intervention
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Executive power of president of united states
Kenneth Anderson is professor of law at American University. He teaches and writes in the areas of business and finance, both domestic and international, law and economics, public international law, international organizations, human rights, and the laws of war. Matthew C. Waxman is a professor of law and the faculty chair of the Roger Hertog Program on Law and National Security. He is an expert in national security law and international law including issues related to executive power: international human rights and constitutional rights, military force and armed conflict, and terrorism. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter and Judge Joel M. Flaum of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The two asserts the premises that the
Wilson, T. W. (n.d.). "Fourteen Points" Avalon Project - Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy. Retrieved April 14, 2011, from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/wilson14.asp
In a world where terrorism, war, and economic instability are ever looming threats it’s not a wonder why the limits on the freedom of the individual can come into question. This is especially true when the country where these limits are brought into question is one of the world’s leading powers in: democracy, economics, social welfare, military force, and foreign politics in general. This country, of course, is the United States. Unfortunately, even with the country’s democratically centered government, there is still a debate on whether Americans have enough protections for civil liberties or not. A few key areas of argument on civil liberties and hopefully provide enough information to the reader so that he/she may deduce an educated opinion as to whether Americans have enough protection for civil liberties or not.
Anyone wishing to argue that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional must be prepared to explain the purpose of article I, section 8 of the Constitution (Carter). Article I, section 8 clearly states that Con...
In her essay Can U.S. Citizens Be Held as Enemy Combatants, Jennifer Vanklausen explores the ethical question of our government’s policy to hold American citizens suspected of terrorist activity against the United States as enemy combatants, withholding their constitutional rights as provided in the fifth and sixth amendments, during an undeclared war.
September 11th, 2001. An organization denoted as terrorists by the United States, Al-Qaeda, attacked the U.S on our own soil. In his “Letter to the American People”, the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, takes a defensive stance regarding the attack, giving his justifications of why the attack on the U.S was warranted and acceptable in the terms of Just War Theory, citing examples of the Right to Self-Defense and reasons why he was justified in targeting American civilians. Just War Theory is comprised of ideas of values to determine when acts of aggression are morally justified or not, and it is primarily split into two categories, Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) and Jus In Bello (Justice in War) (Walzer 21). In this essay, I will be arguing against Bin Laden’s claims of the justification of Al-Qaeda’s attack, using the failure of Bin Laden’s attack to meet the requirements for a just war in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.
Avoiding the conflict between security and civil liberties, by identifying Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant, comprises the value of the government’s accountability as a law-abiding state. Legal systems operating under the Rule of Law should never have an “off-thebooks” approach to necessity; even the defense of necessity must be justified lawfully (Timmons, ). As stated in the case study, the president labeled Mr.Padilla as “an enemy combatant who poses a serious and continuing threat to the American people and our national security.” However, the president’s attempt ...
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks US Congress passed legislation known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 commonly known as the USA Patriot Act. This paper will attempt to prove that not only is the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional but many of its provisions do nothing at all to protect Americans from the dangers of terrorism.
“inalienable rights” in a time of crisis. During World War II, the Cold War, and the War in the
Wingfield, David R. "Why International Law Supports the Invasion of Iraq: A Short History on UN
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.
Lobel, Jules. 2009. Adapted from: Preventive detention and preventive warfare: U.S. national security policies Obama should abandon, Journal of National Security Law and Policy 3: 351-359.
Richardson, Neal A., and Spencer J. Crona. "Terrorists Should Be Tried in a Military Tribunal." Criminal Justice. Ed. Jill Karson. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
After Dahl reviewed his research findings he concluded that the Court was only rarely willing to counter Congress’s preferences by striking legislation. According to Dahl, “the Supreme Court is inevitably a part of the dominant national alliance. As an element in the political leadership of the dominant alliance, the Court, of course supports the major policies of the alliance” (293). This explains to readers that although the Supreme Court does somewhat consider other bodies of government, overall, it attempts to act as its own body when making decisions.
Meiertöns, H. (2010). Doctrines of U.S. Security Policy: An Evaluation Under International Law. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved July 2, 2011 from EBSCOhost
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70-1). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company