First of all, click on the title link above and it should take you to a Yahoo! News story about the Supreme Court and detainees at the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Read this article, and think about the following questions:
- What connections do you notice between this story and the readings we did from "The Nine," especially when it comes to the issue of the Judicial Branch attempting to limit the exercising of power by the Executive Branch?
- I realize you may not know the details or circumstances of the specific cases of particular detainees, but do you agree with President Obama's plan to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay? Or do you more fall in line with President Bush's policy that the prison should remain open and these 170+ detainees should stay locked up in Cuba?
- On a related note (and again obviously understanding that you may not be familiar with the specifics of certain cases), do you agree with the law passed by the House that would prevent detainees currently being held at Guantanamo from being transferred to the United States? (The idea is that if Guantanamo is closed, it's not that the detainees would go free; they would just have to be moved to other maximum-security prisons in the U.S. Many have said they wouldn't want these detainees transferred to their state, so by passing this law, Congress has potentially made it harder for the prison to be closed.) What do you think the Supreme Court should do?
In addition to reading this article, I'd like you to watch a very interesting 13-minute video clip. It's a one-on-one interview on Fox News Sunday between host Chris Wallace and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. There's a chance that a link to this video clip will appear on the side of the screen when you're reading the Yahoo! News article ("Justice Stephen Breyer on FNS"), but if not, you can get to it by clicking on the link below:
As you watch this video, please consider the following questions:
- Do you agree with with Breyer's assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution, or more with Wallace's notion that we should go by the exact wording of the Constitution? Why? How does this connect with our discussion in class of the different types of judicial interpretation and ideology?
- Do you agree with Breyer's explanation of the 2nd Amendment? Or do you more agree with the interpretations of the Supreme Court (against which Breyer dissented) that led to handgun bans being overturned in the past year or two? Why?
- When Wallace asks Breyer about President Obama's comments at last year's State of the Union regarding the Citizens United decision, do you agree with Chief Justice Roberts' statement that it was "troubling," or did you find yourself agreeing more with Breyer's explanation of the situation? Why?
Remember, you should post two separate comments to the blog. The first should be your answers to as many of the above questions as you can, and the second posting should be a response to the comments of one or more of your classmates. You have until the end of the day Friday, December 17th to post your comments. Good luck, have fun, and Happy Holidays!
Some connections I see from this article and "The Nine" articles are that the president in both have great influence in many diverse decisions, obviously. So as the Judicial Branch attempts to limit the exercising of power to the executive branch, I agree to this but only slim that maybe some powers should be reevaluated for certain if it should be in the hands of the president. I have mixed decisions about the closing of Guantanamo Bay just because I don't know too much about it , but that it holds highly classified terrorists! No, I do not agree with the law being passed by the House to prevent detainees currently being held at Guantanamo from being transferred to the U.S. because I think we should have a mainland prison for them, but in the middle of nowhere maybe with severe temperatures outside, etc. Overall I think the Supreme Court should allow the President to close Guantanamo and create a new prison.
ReplyDeleteFrom the video, I greatly believe we should follow the values outlined in our constitution! Exactly stating wouldn't make sense because it's a different era in time now. Judicial interpretation and ideology could be debated either way for most cases, but in the end it matters how you view the order and is it constitutional (in our day and age)/(appropriate, etc.)?
I agree more with Breyer, because the second amendment states, "being necessary to the security of a free state" which defends for protection rights. Basically have a gun by you in case anything greatly in danger occurs. Obviously in today's day and age having a gun on you isn't exactly normal, but with all the new gadgets and ways to even get a gun; we all should be well aware if someone is capable of using it for safety or using it to do bad things.
With the State of Union issue I would consider Chief Justice Roberts' statement and that it was troubling, because it was a little embarrassing for the court. Breyer seems like a very educated man, but I think he cares more for the tradition rather than the reality of events or ideas.
I noticed, once again, that there is a lot of thought that goes into who is on which side. As it stated in the article, John Pual Stevens resignation lead to “a Supreme Court will rule 4-4 on the cases, which would have the Appeals Court ruling prevail and return them to square one.” This reminded me of “The Nine” because there was a lot of thought put into each candidtate and what each candidate would bring to the overall vote of the Supreme Court. The judicial Branch attempted to limit the executive power in this issue by voting such things like detainees cannot be released on U.S soil.
ReplyDeleteI do not think we should close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay but I do not agree with the 170+ detainees staying locked up in Cuba neither. I do not know much about Guantanamo Bay, but I do think that it is necessary for the United States to have a detention facility like to hold prisoners of war and get information out of them like every other country does with their prisoners of war. However, there should be ethical guidelines as well. I do not think that we should keep a prisoner of war if they are of no use in Guantanamo Bay. They should have a right to a trial and then if proven guilty then yes, they should be locked up.
I think that everyone would feel safer if the terrorists who have an extreme hate for Americans do not live in America. If something goes wrong and one terrorist gets away, that could be a potential threat to every single innocent person. I agree with the House in preventing detainees to be transferred to the U.S. I think the Supreme Court should refine this law so there could be exceptions. For example, if the detainee would help the U.S or was wrongly accused.
I agree with Breyer’s assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined by the Constitution due to the constant change in America. I do not think we can live by the same exact laws we did hundreds of years ago because of technology. Technology has changed everything about the way we live today, and as Breyer said—the framers were not thinking about technology when they were writing the Constitution. This connects with our discussion in class because the constitution can be interpreted many different ways. For example, Ginsgurg saying that abortion is sexest because it doesn’t apply to men. I think it is the way that the judicial branch interprets the Constitution in relation to the world that is important. I think the question should be asked “What would be best for the country?”.
I agree with the handgun bans being over turned because I think it is important for someone to feel safe. The government shouldn’t interfere with someone’s ability to feel safe. As it stated in the constitution, as long as the guns are used responsibly, then it is fine to possess one.
I agree with Breyer’s statement in that it is important for the Justices to be there and if the judges are meant to be emotionless then they shall be emotionless. I feel like Breyer went on and on about how the judges focused on the traditions and values that famers wanted. This separation of politicians and judges during the State of the Union address is probably what the framers wanted and therefore should be so. I do no find it troubling at all that they have to sit there quietly because a judge’s job is not to sway another political party a certain way. The judge’s job is to review laws not support them.
I agree with michaela about gun control. Guns should be used respondsibly and not for bad uses. I do not think the government should have the right to tell us how to feel safe. I bet if a Guantanamo Bay facility was established in a state, that state would have alot more liscensed guns than any other state. The feeling of being safe is very important in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading this article, I noticed that it focused a lot on predicting the outcome of the rulings that the Supreme Court would make based on who would vote and where certain people stand. This is similar to the focus in “The Nine”, because where certain people stand is a key factor that the president and his advisors take into mind when appointing a judge to the Supreme Court. I also noticed that the Judicial Branch is a major factor in the outcomes of the president’s decisions because although the president may stand one way on an issue, the Supreme Court can affect the outcome.
ReplyDeleteI mostly agree with Obama’s plan to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay because I think that to keep those people locked up in Cuba without a fair trial is a violation of human rights. Fairness is part of what our country and our democracy is based off of in the first place. On the other hand, closing the detention facility involves some risks, too, such as some of the prisoners may not be convicted but commit further crimes.
It’s true that to completely understand and answer the question of agreeing with the law that prevents detainees from being transferred to the US, you’d need more details about the cases. But from what I know, I think that Guantanamo Bay should be closed and the detainees should be transferred here, and given the right to a civilian trial. To me, it doesn’t make sense that anyone would be scared to have them transferred here and give them a trial because doesn’t America have faith in their laws and the Supreme Court? Or does that say that we don’t trust our laws? I think the question here is: Are we willing to sacrifice the principles our nation was founded on for safety?
I do agree with Breyer’s assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution because I agree with his idea that they need to be “applied flexibly” over “ever-changing circumstances. I agree with this because it is true that the laws in the constitution do not involve technology, which keeps progressing everyday in this day in age. I think that this connects with different types of judicial interpretation and ideology because the rulings of the Supreme Court depend majorly on how each of the judges is allowed to interpret and how they interpret the Constitution.
I agree more with Breyer’s explanation of the 2nd Amendment because I think that he was right when he explained his interpretations of Madison’s ideas behind the 2nd Amendment and that it was more of his way of ratifying the Constitution and being careful of opponents.
I do think that the way Obama commented on the Citizens United decision was somewhat rude and ignorant to the judges. But at the same time, I do understand Breyer’s belief that it is not his job as a judge to “write opinions” and the job of the rest of America is to criticize those opinions.
Like the article "The Nine" this article also takes into consideration the perspectives that citizens adopt towards a judge or really any individual with power. Both articles strongly value the opinion of the public when choosing properly in a situation.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is a smart choice to close down the Guantanamo Bay prison and to relocate detainees in different U.S. prisons. First of all, I disagree with the methods of questioning used against suspected criminals, given that from several sources these methods have been characterized as inhumane forms of torture. Second, I do not believe that grouping the most notorious criminals in one location together is an intelligent idea since this facilitates their ability to communicate even if they are incarcerated in separate compartments. If a criminal knows he/she has a person of trust nearby then the criminal will try to find a way to contact that fellow comrade and will succeed in possibly planning an escape or worse another crime. Therefore, the better distributed, the less chances of having a crowd of prisoners plan another 9/11 or a crime of the sort.
If the Guantanamo Bay prison were to be closed I would prefer that its prisoners be transferred to other maximum-security prisons within the United States’ fifty states. Tying to what I mentioned previously, the criminals could be better distributed than all just being located at one place and thus the chances of them contacting each other could be reduced. If the prisoners were not sent to the States but rather to other countries then that would not be very logical since these prisoners have committed crimes affecting the U.S. and so it is the right of this country to punish them in a just manner, not that of another country.
I agree with Breyer in that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution because it is very true that when writing this document our founding fathers did not know with certainty the events that would follow. It is very hard to apply the exact wording of the Constitution to a twenty-first century case which deals with more specific issues foreign to the ideologies of the 1770s. This can be seen as a loose judicial interpretation that is not solely based word-for-word on the document.
Regarding the 2nd Amendment, I think it was somewhat difficult to understand Breyer’s argument. I simply believe that, like he claimed, words can be applied differently in each situation based on the values decreed in our Constitution.
I sympathize with Chief Justice Roberts and imagine that it must have been awkward and uncomfortable to be seated at last year’s State of the Union when President Obama brought up the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court and his supporters stood to clap. However, I recognize Breyers’ statement that the opinions/decisions of judges will always be criticized by citizens no matter what and one must simply deal with it as best they think.
Do you agree with with Breyer's assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution, or more with Wallace's notion that we should go by the exact wording of the Constitution? Why? How does this connect with our discussion in class of the different types of judicial interpretation and ideology?
ReplyDeleteDo you agree with Breyer's explanation of the 2nd Amendment? Or do you more agree with the interpretations of the Supreme Court (against which Breyer dissented) that led to handgun bans being overturned in the past year or two? Why?
When Wallace asks Breyer about President Obama's comments at last year's State of the Union regarding the Citizens United decision, do you agree with Chief Justice Roberts' statement that it was "troubling," or did you find yourself agreeing more with Breyer's explanation of the situation? Why?
Sorry sorry! I accidentally copied and pasted the wrong thing and I don't know how to delete it; this is what I meant to say
ReplyDeleteWhen reading this article, I am reminded of the reading from “The Nine” that involved the Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld case, not only because it had to do with Guantanamo Bay, but because in this case, Roberts had preserved the power of the president – and this reminded me of how the article stated that the “Bush and Obama administrations have steadily and energetically sought to keep for the executive branch the most control over US detention policy...” and how the Supreme court “dealt successive blows” to the president’s policies, limiting his power. Also, I am reminded of “The Nine” in that there is a lot of sort of trying to predict how the judges will rule and where they stand, which was exactly what the presidents did in the reading – they tried to guess and see how the judges would vote on certain issues.
Admittedly, I don’t really know anything about Guantanamo Bay, and I sort of can’t really have an opinion either way, but I do think the detainees deserve the right to a fair trial because that is something that they’re entitled to, even if they are bad people, everyone deserves the right to speak for themselves. I just don’t really see why if it is so controversial for the detainees to be in Cuba, then how would the situation be any better moving them somewhere else?
Again, I really don’t know much about the situation, but I do think that the law passed by the House only made the problem worse – it is just harder now for the president to figure out what to do with the detainees. Also, I’m not sure about this, but would preventing the detainees from being transferred to the United States prohibit them from being put on trial? (I’m not sure about that, so if anyone wants to explain that to me, thanks.) Because if that’s the case, I don’t think that that’s fair at all – I understand that these people might be terrorists, but I still think that they deserve to be able to speak for themselves. I think that the Supreme Court should rule to ensure that the detainees be able to be tried in court.
I agree with Breyer’s assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution. I agree with Breyer when he says “As you read this document [the Constitution]… it uses words like liberty, it uses words like liberty, it uses words like interstate commerce, it uses words like the freedom of speech. They stand for values. They don’t tell you how to apply these words to the world of the internet,” because there is no possible way for the framers to have known what the future would hold, and that they wanted their Constitution to serve as a guide in making laws about whatever might come. I agree with Breyer when he says that the Constitution needs to be applied to a world that is ever changing – this reminds me of when we talked about strict vs. loose interpretation of the Constitution, and it depends on how each specific judge interprets the Constitution.
I agree with what Breyer wrote in his book when he said that the Constitution should be applied to changing circumstances and real world consequences, and how he talks how the scope of the right to keep and bear arms might have terrible consequences; however, I do think that the Constitution does say pretty clearly that the people have the right to bear arms.
I’m not entirely sure that I understand the whole situation, but I found myself agreeing more with Breyer because he said that he understood that people are always going to have different opinions, and the beauty of his job is that he gets to see those different opinions get worked out every day.
The connections I noticed between this story and the readings we did from “The Nine” is the competing influence of the Judicial Branch vs the Executive Branch. In “The Nine” I observed how the president has the opportunity to influence what decisions will be made by the Supreme Court, by the selected nominees, taking into consideration their party affiliation and previous decisions. In this article, as well, the Executive Branch and Judicial branch have conflicting powers. One of the evident debates is whether this is a military issue or an issue to be presided over by the U.S. court system. The Judicial Branch has the argument that the separation of powers structure in the Constitution gives the courts jurisdiction over the cases. However, as these are not U.S. citizens, nor ordinary detainees, I have to disagree with those who believe Guantanamo Bay should be closed. Yes, it is evident that the prisoners lack basic representation or rights, and there is a possibility that some of the prisoners are innocent (as is the case in most US jails as well). I understand that the Geneva Convention outlined the treatment of prisoners of war, and that Guantanamo Bay, in a sense, makes America “look bad”. However, I do not believe that by any circumstance, the prisoners should be tried or kept in the United States. First of all, trying them in America gives them the rights of an American citizen to a trial by jury. Well, the problem with this is that most of the evidence is from secret sources, or the result of confessions that have been obtained through potentially dubious means (torture). Resultantly, much of the evidence may not be able to be shared in a typical American court system situation, and as torture is illegal, may actually give the terrorists an unfair advantage. Also, considering that some of the released detainees have gone on to re-join Al Qaeda and that countries have refused to take control over their native captives which we have offered to them, increasing the chances of freeing these dangerous people is not even a logical risk to consider. Yes, innocent people should not be held against their will. But no, I would not like to have the masterminds behind the 911 attack in the United States, the very country they detest and would likely try to destroy again given the chance. I agree with the law passed by the House that would prevent detainees currently being held at Guantanamo from being transferred to the United States. Even Obama has yet to close Guantanamo Bay, almost a year after its promised due date. I believe he has likely learned more information which has changed his mind, preventing him to do so. I believe that this is a military issue, not to be considered or evaluated by the Supreme Court in the United States.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Breyer’s assertion that “the court should regard the Constitution as containing unwavering values that must be applied flexibly to ever-changing circumstances.” As he said, there is no way that our Founding Fathers were even considering issues such as Internet content, and thus to deal with such issues, it is the overall meanings embedded in the Constitution, rather than the words, that should be used to rule on behalf of such ever-changing issues. This reminds me of the age-old debate of loose construction v. strict construction. It seems as if Justice Breyer is considering more of a loose construction of the constitution. However, I think it is better to think of it as Breyer wanting a loose construction of the words of the constitution, but a strict construction of its values. Its values should never be compromised. Again, I agree with Breyer’s explanation of the 2nd Amendment. The specific wording of the constitution does not cover such possibilities of machine guns, or the severe threats we face today, and it is the values in the Constitution and safety of Americans which we should consider. In regards to President Obama’s comments in last year’s State of the Union regarding the Citizens United decision, I probably would have initially reacted like Chief Justice Roberts. Its disturbing how the Executive Branch stood up so abruptly to applaud the unity of thought that the Supreme Court was wrong. However, Breyer is probably right. When I think about it more, and analyze what he said. It’s really all about opinions. Everyone has a different one and that’s beautiful—willingness to express it freely should be encouraged.
ReplyDeleteThe connections I see between this article and "The Nine" is that the president puts a lot of thought into his actions, just as Clinton and Bush did when appointing judges. The judicial branch also plays a huge role in the president's decisions because they check to make sure he does not exercise too much power. For example, Obama can't close Guantanamo Bay right now because the detainees legal issues and court cases have not been justified yet.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Obama should close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, but I do not agree with the law that prevents the detainees from being held in the states. I understand peoples' discomfort with having terrorists in our country, but if we have an airtight prison system to place them in there shouldn't be a problem. (Plus, if they were to be released and freed in their own country, they may have the opportunity to band together and create more issues.) I feel that the Supreme Court should reverse its ruling regarding detainees on US soil. They deserve a fair trial rather than be held in unjustified detention.
I agree with Breyer's assertion that we should be guided by the values in our Constitution. As he says, the world is full of "ever-changing circumstances" and it would be impossible to stick to one specific, ultimate ideology. Technology is developing everyday. How can one document written so long ago cover every aspect of present-day society unless it is interpreted in a broad sense?
I agree with Breyer regarding the second amendment and gun control. Yes Americans should have the right to bear arms, but it should be regulated. As Breyer mentioned earlier, our interpretation of the Constitution should be broad enough to keep up with the times. I don't know if I would feel very safe knowing that a majority of the people in my community had guns.
I agree with Breyer's explanation of the State of the Union situation. Americans are allowed to have their own feelings about certain issues, and the judges are to remain emotionless, that way they don't sway those opinions.
I agree with Kaitlyn that America should continue to use Guantanamo Bay, as it is necessary for "the United States to have a detention facility" but that "here should be ethical guidelines as well." It is evident that some of the treatment at the facility is unjust, but considering the dangerous people involved and the threat to our humanity they pose, it is necessary to have a detention facility to prevent future attacks the best we can. I will agree that they deserve the chance to speak for themselves, however, I do not believe a trial by the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court is the right option. Perhaps other methods can be considered.
ReplyDeleteI found myself agreeing with much of what Astrid said about Breyer's interpretation of the Constitution. I think we can all agree that the Framers "wanted their Constitution to serve as a guide in making laws about whatever might come." Breyer's words were both logical, and seem to resonate with what our Founding Fathers would have wanted. Its the values and meanings behind the Constitution that should determine what decisions are made-not the specific wording. It comforts me to think that someone like Breyer is at least 1/9 of the Supreme Court Justices that rule on behalf of our country.
I agree with Sam's statement that the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay should be relocated to somewhere in the United States, but not necessarily all to the same place. That could be problematic because they could network and plan future mass crimes together. I also agree with Michaela when she said that we should be more worried if someone owns a gun in this present day, simply because it isn't really common. We should have regulation laws in order to prevent people from using guns in other negative ways besides protection.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of similarities between the excerpts from "The Nine", and this article, they both prevent the president from having too much power. In the article, the courts prevent President Obama from closing Guantanamo Bay, just like Congress can choose to confirm or deny a judicial nomination. Both are ways that the Executive power remains in check. I don't really agree with President Obama's decision to shut down the Guantanamo Bay facility, because where would the 170+ detainees go? To the U.S.? Personally, I would not feel as safe, considering they're being held responsible for 9/11. So therefore, I am more of a Bush supporter on this particular issue and I definitely support the House passed law that prevents the detainees from residing in the U.S. I think that if you went up to 100 random people and asked them their opinion on the issue, I bet most would say they would feel safer if the detainees stayed in Cuba. So, I don't think that the Supreme Court should overturn the law, but support it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Breyer more, we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution, because it allows for the country to progress and more forward as the world changes and grows. In terms of class discussion, this would be more of a loose constructionist view, as they tend to read between the lines. When they talked about the 2nd Amendment, I agree with Breyer's interpretation, in that handguns should not be banned, but regulated, because if guns weren't controlled, things would most likely get out of hand in over populated cities. I agree with Breyer's view of the situation, because he handled it very well, and the job of the Supreme Court Judges is to write opinions, and to remain silent when it comes to what Americans think of those opinions.
I agree with Lindsay about her views on Breyer's statements during his interview. I think that the way she phrased Breyer's job and how the American people play a role was well thought out and nicely said. With the article about the prison in Cuba, I agree with Britta and Kaitlyn's views of it, because it is necessary for "the United States to have a detention facility" but we do have to take into account the safety of the American people if we were to bring all the detainees to the U.S. in the event that President Obama closes Guantanamo Bay.
ReplyDeletethe reading reminded me of the nine because the judicial branch tries to regulate the presidents power and doesnt always listen to what their opinion on a certain thing is or vote on what they expect them to rule on. and they wont let obama close Guantanamo jail because the detainees havent been ruled on yet so they wont let obama do what he wants to do. i think the jail should stay open because i dont want those peices of dirt in my country they belong locked up for life and never released. i believe anyone that tries to harm the United States should be tortured for life but thats why i would never be elected. i think the court should leave it as is and not let the people get a ruling and just throw them in that jail and toss the key.
ReplyDeletei do agree with Breyer everything he seems like a super smart dude and really knows what hes talking about. i like what he says about how the constitution is basically a living document and needs to evolve as society evolves. he says stuff like the framers never knew that their would be internet or tv. so i believe they should interpret the constitution the way he was describing it. i think people should be able to have a gun but only use it when absolutely necessary like some gangster trying to nab your stuff then i believe its fine to pop a cap, and also for hunting game, and if someone threatens your life those are the only times you should be able to have a gun. you know i think that was really lame of Obama to do that but Breyer is just the man and i love the way he handled the situation nothing fazes that guy and i love how he says everyone has a right to their own opinion and i have the right to my own opinion. that guy knows what hes doing in my opinion. i dont not agree with Roberts opinion because i know i would have been pissed off if someone did that to me but i just respect the way breyer handled the situation and said he would come back next year and every year after i thought that showed a lot of class.
i agree with michaela on the second amendment thing i believe that people should have a right to own a gun and use it in certain extreme situations and for like hunting like huge moose or bobcat or some big game animal but the hunting should be regulated so the animals dont go extinct. i also agree with what her opinion is regarding the constitution because i believe the constitution should change as society changes and grow with all the technology and gnarly missiles and bombs that we have access to now. its just not the same as it was back in the day when people still pooped in outhouses and shot with muskets
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article discussing both the Obama’s administration where the detainee’s should have a trial by jury and either have them moved to U.S jails or moved to other countries and the Bush administration where the detainee’s should remain in Guantanamo Bay without a trial, I would have to say I do not agree with President Obama’s plan to close the military detention facility. I actually instead find myself agreeing more with President Bush’s policy; that the prison should remain open and the prisoners should remain there. After initially thinking this, I thought how if I were a guest or detainee there, how much I would want to have a trial by jury because everyone held by the U.S has that right but then again I would have to have done something very awful to be placed in that imprisonment and well, to an extent, I would believe that, and I am aware of how ridiculous this sounds, I should stay there for the safety of America. This is what Bush said in creating the over usage of Guantanamo Bay and I therefore agree with the law passed by the House of Representatives that would keep detainees from Guantanamo from being transferred. I also saw in the article of the option of these highly dangerous prisoners being transferred to foreign countries. Most countries do not want these detainees, but the countries who have already taken detainees in, have already released the majority of these detainees from prison.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to “The Nine” I saw a lot of time and work goes into elaborate decisions whether being the controversial case of closing Guantamano Bay or picking an appropriate new Supreme Court judge. Another similarity was how the executive branch in both the article and the story try to predict or foresee what congress or the judicial branch will do.
I agree with what Lindsay said about how she understood that people may be discomforted with having terrorists in their country, but that they shouldn’t have anything to worry about if they had faith in the system. I also agree with her when she said that the Court should reverse its ruling to allow them a fair ruling.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Britta when she said that she though of it as “Breyer wants a loose construction of the words of the constitution, but a strict construction of its values” and that its values should never be compromised. I more find myself agreeing with the loose constructionists, because if those that interpret the Constitution are strict constructionists, then many things that must be ruled on must be ignored, because almost everything that exists today did not exist when the framers wrote the Constitution. I also really agreed with Britta when she said that after some thought, she agreed with Breyer’s explanation of the State of the Union situation, because I also initially agreed with Roberts, however, I agree with Britta that it is beautiful for everyone to have different opinions, because there will never be one thing that everyone agrees on.
“The Court should regard the Constitution as containing unwavering values that must be applied flexibly to ever-changing circumstances.” After watching the video, I agree with what Breyer said and indeed we should follow what the constitution says, but times change and therefore it must be ‘applied flexibly to ever-changing circumstances’. I also agree with Sadie where I agree with Breyer more and ‘we should be guided by the values outlined in our constitution, because it allows for the country to progress and more forward as the world changes and grows’.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed everything Breyer had to say; he spoke with such self assurance and a very non-arrogant confindence that I felt that I agreed with everything he had to say. Although I noticed by the end of the video he didn’t answer Wallace directly and somewhat avoided questions but I still agree with his original statement.
In the article I can see that the Judicial Branch does limit the Executive Branch in ways. The Supreme Court has the right to keep the President in check by ruling a policy as constitutional or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court did this during President George W. Bush’s presidency when it ruled that detainees had the right to contest their detention in US courts and hear the evidence against them.
ReplyDeleteI do not completely agree with closing Guantanamo Bay. With the way that things are running now it seems like it should be shutdown because of the unfair treatment that the detainees are receiving, but if it were shutdown where would the detainees go? There would have to be a solid and permanent plan that would be put into place.
I’m not sure if I agree with the law prohibiting detainees from being transferred to U.S. soil. I feel like if the detainees were put into maximum security prisons it would be perfectly fine. There would be very little chance that something would go wrong, but at the same time it would depend on where the detainees were transferred. I’m sure that if the detainees were located in my state I would probably feel a little more threatened and uncomfortable than if they were in another state, so there is a dilemma. It’s a hard decision to make.
In the video, I agree with Justice Breyer’s view that the Constitution should apply to circumstances that come about. He is right when he says the writers of the Constitution had no idea there would be this ever-changing future that included the internet and television, so it is the job of the court to take a step back, widen their views, and look at the ideas of the Constitution opposed to just looking at the words that are on the paper.
I would have to disagree with Breyer’s banning of hand guns in Washington D.C. I understand that the Court is preventing dangerous and unstable people from obtaining weapons, but corrupt people are going to get a hold of guns no matter if there is a law preventing it. If there is a law preventing the honest and trust worthy citizens from getting a simple hand gun, then how are they going to protect themselves from those more dangerous people that have illegally obtained guns?
I believe that Justice Roberts had the right to say that it troubled him to sit through the State of the Union speech surrounded by others who were cheering while the members of the Court had to stay expressionless, but I agree with Breyer’s explanation that Roberts has a right to his opinion and Breyer has a right to his own.
After reading the article on the Guantanamo Bay detainees, I did notice a few connections with “The Nine” Article. The main connection that I made was the fact the Judicial Branch does not always rule exactly as the President had planned them to rule. Within the “Guantanamo detainees take fight to Supreme Court” article, The Supreme Court “dealt many blows to the then president George W. Bush's Guantanamo policies in 2004, 2006 and 2008, where they ruled in previous cases that detainees had the right to contest their detention in US courts and hear the evidence against them.” The fact that the Court still ruled against George Bush’s policies even after he had appointed Justices, with his own ideologies, to that court, proves that the Supreme Court, and the Judiciary Branch still makes independent decisions and wield a tremendous amount of power against the executive branch. Since the Judiciary Branch has the primary power to rule cases constitutional or unconstitutional, the Judiciary Branch was able to greatly limit the executive power by literally reading the constitution and giving detainees the right to contest their detention in US courts. This allows the detainees practically to go straight to the US Supreme Court and hear their case, by passing any executive order and limiting the executive branch in any policy making it wants to do. Personally, I believe that the prison should stay open because of the fact that no one knows where to put all of the 170+ detainees. Since Obama has yet to come up with a solution, I believe the prison should stay open it’ll that problem is completely solved. Only once that is solved should the prison be closed and the detainees dealt with. I would agree with the law that was passed by the House because it forces the President to actually decide what is to happen with all the detainees. The law makes it harder to close the Prison because, as I said before, no one knows what to do with all the people. Many States do not want them, and many Americans also do not want them on American soil, so Obama has to make a clear cut decision of what he is going to do before he says anything else to the general public.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Breyer. I believe that with a continuously changing world, the U.S. Constitution should be read through its underlining values and should be flexible to the intentions of the framers. Just like Breyer said, how are we supposed to know what the Framers would think of the internet or of the television, if the framers knew of these things before drafting the constitution, it could have been completely different. This way of thinking fits perfectly with judicial activism. Since judicial activism is the way of looking at the constitution and ruling based upon the ideas, instead of the actual words, I believe that this way of thinking is the best way to rule as the world continues to change. As I read in the textbook, even some conservatives had begun to change their opinions from strict constructionalist to conservative activism. In terms of the explanation of the 2nd amendment, I agree with Breyer that even though the words of the constitution actually stated that the American people have the right to bear arms, I agree that laws should be passed according to the reality of situations. The bans on gun control in DC is an example of how the reality of the safety of the people is more important then up holding the rights of the second amendment. I agree with Chief Justice Robert that the action that the president’s party took during his comments about the Citizens United decision was “troubling” but as Breyer said, it is all a matter of opinion and because of this fact is the reason why the courts and judges have the ability to rule and interpret the way that they can.
I agree with Britta when she noted that "Justice Breyer is considering...a loose construction of the words of the constitution, but a strict construction of its values. Its values should never be compromise". I agree that it is the values of the constitution that should never be changed. The framers created the constitution with the thoughts of protecting the ideals of the american people. So they wrote these ideals down on paper and created the constitution. If you were to strictly read the constitution, you could look over many ideals that the framers might have be hinting at, but did not want to wirte down because they can be implied. By looking at the constitution in a loose way, one can interpretthe ideals and values.
ReplyDeleteIn this issue, the Judicial branch is going over a Constitutionally unspecified, unforeseen, and unpredictable controversy. There is nothing in the Constitution that refers directly to a case like that of the Gitmo detainees, and the laws that might be relevant to it are vaguely worded such that they are not terribly helpful in determining the Constitutional grounds for either side. I’m interested to see what a strict constructionist would have to say about this case, because I’ve had a hard time finding anything that might help me reach a conclusion here based solely on the explicit wording of our country’s founding document… With that said, I honestly have no idea what is the right thing to do based on what the Constitution says. In my personal opinion, now would be is an excellent opportunity for the Court to set a precedent regarding how the U.S. treats non-citizens. Such a precedent could have far-reaching effects on everything from illegal immigration, to foreigners rights, to this case in particular. Since there really is no current legal status for these people, why doesn’t the Court use this opportunity to make one? Whatever they decide to rule, it’s got to be decided eventually. If you ask me, every country should have some code by which it treats non-citizens. It worries me that there are people out there with no rights because the government has no defined them as citizens nor given them any legal status. What if I visit a foreign country that, like the US has no definition for a foreigner like me, and I’m suddenly accused of terrorist action? Could I possibly end up in a Gitmo of some other foreign nation? I hope not… It just so happens that this ties into balance of power because the President who approved the Gitmo camps disagreed with the Court during his time in office. The Court had ruled multiple times against Bush, and in doing so limited his power. I’m not sure how the Court’s actions relate to Obama’s opinion of the camp, but I think again it will be the Courts, not the President who decide. I am definitely would be a judicial activist. I think judges should practice restraint when pertinent, but there are so many cases that aren’t covered by the Constitution that in some cases, you shouldn’t even try. I disagree with Breyer’s 2nd Amendment views. But I can understand his view. If you asked me, the Framers sure slipped up when they made that amendment to the Constituion… Seriously, could you be any more ambiguous about such an important topic?!? There are tons of arguments for both sides, but it is so unclear what the Founders meant that it’s really up to your opinion what that means.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gaby’s statement about how she disagrees with Breyer’s banning of hand guns. I think that she made a good point when she said that despite laws for or against the issue, people may still be able to get a hold of guns, just like drugs. I agree with her point of how people can protect themselves from other dangerous people without guns. I think that, although there are other methods of protection, banning guns might also be a form of invasion of privacy.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article I realized that the judicial branch can really limit the power of the executive branch by not ruling in favor of presidential policy. In “The Nine”, presidents Clinton and Bush were very careful when choosing their nomination for the empty seats in the Supreme Court because they knew that getting a chance to nominate a justice was a great opportunity for them to implement their policies even after the end of their terms. In choosing their nominees, they had to make sure their choice would rule in favor of their policies, because another advantage of the judicial branch is their lifetime service. Once on the Court, they can rule whichever way they choose without the implications of politics to deal with.
ReplyDeleteI am not entirely familiar with the Guantanamo Bay ordeal, but I agree with Kaitlyn and Britta in that the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay should not be closed but rather changed to having a more ethical environment for the detainees. Furthermore, I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling that the detainees have a right to a fair trial. As regards to the law passed by the House, I think that it is very pointless and creates more work for the president who wants the prison closed. So, I go back to my original suggestion of bettering the conditions of Guantanamo Bay.
I completely agree with Justice Breyer’s judicial activism and his assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution. He makes an excellent point that our founding fathers did not write the Constitution thinking about all the different changes in society’s lifestyle hundreds of years later. They did write it so our country would have these certain underlying principles that should be upheld for our country’s entire existence. In regards to the 2nd Amendment, I fully agreed with Justice Breyer’s explanation. The most important part is the underlying principle of the safety of America, as he stumps Wallace with the question of the “scope of the right to keep and bear arms”. Initially when I watched the little flashback to the state of the union, I was concerned about the bias of the Supreme Court judges, getting applauded by all Democrats of President Obama’s party. I could understand where the Republican Chief Justice Roberts was coming from. But after hearing what Breyer had to say about how he was just performing his job and how it was his duty to represent the judicial branch at the state of the union so all three branches were equally represented, I started to lean more towards his view of the situation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few connections between this article and "The Nine" article. The Judicial Branch definitely has some control/power over the Executive Branch. If it doesn't rule in favor of presidential policy, it really does limit the power. The appointees don't always agree with the president, even if he selected them. Clinton and Bush carefully selected their own appointees as discussed in "The Nine", but in 2004, 2006, and 2008 the proceedings of Guantanamo Bay and the Supreme Court went against then President Bush's policies.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with President Obama's policy to close the detention center in Guantanamo Bay. It's been around for a while and is home to some very dangerous people, who shouldn't even be placed in the United States. Guantanamo Bay is a great secure prison where escape is just about impossible and as bad as it gets. A place like this is what the people inside truly deserve.
I'm leaning towards thinking that I do agree with the new law that would prevent inmates from Guantanamo Bay to be transferred into US maximum security prisons. I believe that if they are placed down there, they must stay there. They are obviously there for extreme reasons and do not belong on US soil. I can understand how citizens would not want them in their cities and states, even if it is in a maximum security detention center. I really think the Supreme Court needs to keep Guantanamo Bay active, as one of the highest security prisons found anywhere.
I agree with Breyer when he says we should be guided by the values outlined in our constitution. I don't agree at all with Wallace when he says we should follow the exact wording. There are always times and places for exceptions, and under Wallace's ways we wouldn't be able to make any. The country is always changing and definitely has changed alot since the constitution was originally written. This connects with our class discussions because the framers would have wanted judicial interpretation, for the constitution to be an ultimate guide to the running of this country.
I don't completely agree with Breyer's opinion of the second amendment, but there can always be exceptions. The regulation of guns is definitely different from the way they used to be back in the 1800's for example. These days, I think certain exceptions can be made but for the most part I agree with Breyer because his priority is the safety of America.
I agree with Judge Roberts's comments at the State of the Union, saying it was troubling. But like Breyer said, everyone will have their own opinions and there will always be a variety of opinions everywhere no matter what.
Response to Kaitlyn Couture: I agree when you say that the government shouldn't interfere with someone's ability to feel safe, but they should definitely do everything they can to make sure every citizen feels safe and secure in the community and in their homes at all times. Handguns are available for safety and it's not really often you see someone carry it outside of their homes anyway.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Britta: I like your point about the inmates in Guantanamo Bay not being American citizens. These are people who most likely have never set foot on American soil, and it just wouldn't make sense to detain them here. Guantanamo Bay is there for a reason, to place highly dangerous people who poised a threat to America, and keep them away from our soil.
ReplyDeleteI notice a few connections between this article and the excerpts from "The Nine" that we read. Perhaps the most obvious though, is the fact that both show us how the Judicial decisions can affect the President's ability to enforce, and pass legislation. In this situation the Supreme Court is limiting the ability of G Bay laws to hold the detainees. This is shown when in 2004, 2006, and 2008 the supreme court ruled against the Bush administration, even though two of the justices were appointed by Bush, they still felt that what was happening in G Bay was unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Obama's decision to close the prison. First off this is putting stress on other countries to house enemies of our country. If we bring them to the U.S. than enemies of the state will be held on our soil. I do not feel comfortable having these men held in the united states. They are in they are in Guantanamo for a reason, it's not like they are in for minor charges. And I think that most state governments would be against taking in the detainees in their prisons. There is also a possibility that these people would get hurt or killed in these prisons. They are a dangerous enough place to be, without being a enemy of the state. It is just an all around bad idea to put these guys in prisons on U.S. soil.
I agree with justice Breyer when he said we should be guided by the outlined values described in the U.S. constitution. The document was written over 200 years ago. Issues have changed drastically since that time. So in order for the court to make important decisions, I think it is necessary that they use the outlined values, but not worry about what is specifically stated. In terms of the 2nd amendment, I feel that the safety of the american public is an important factor. But still, under certain regulations, I think that people should be allowed to own and operate firearms. I think that it is not troubling that the justices had to sit their motionless. They are supposed to be a non political force of the federal government. By showing reactions, one could try to say that they are showing favoritism to one party or another.
A connection I noticed between the reading and “The Nine” is the influence of both the Judicial and Executive Branch. I noticed that the president has the opportunity to influence the decisions being made by the Supreme Court. In this article the Executive Branch and Judicial Branch have conflicts with their powers. One of the debates is whether this is a military issue or a court issue. But since the prisoners are not US citizens I disagree with those people that think Guantanamo Bay should be closed. So I fall in the line with President Bush’s policy that the prison should remain open and these 170+ detainees should stay locked up in Cuba. I do agree with the law passed by the House that prevents detainees from being transferred because if they were transferred to the US they would have the rights as an American Citizen to a trial by jury. I don’t think the Supreme Court should get involved with this because this event is more of a military issue.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Breyers statement that the court should regard the Constitution as containing unwavering values that must be applied flexibly to ever- changing circumstances. Since our Founding Fathers had no idea what the Internet was there would be no way to deal with this issue. This connects with our discussion in class about loose and strict constructionists. I agree with Breyers explanation of the 2nd amendment because the specific wording of the constitution does not cover such possibilities of machine guns or severe threats we face today. In President Obama’s comments in last years State of the Union address I would have had the same reaction that Chief Justice Roberts had. The executive branch should not have been so abrupt when they were taking about the wrong things the Supreme Court did.
ReplyDeleteI agree with hans when he said that the bans on gun control are a good example of how the safety of the people can trump the importance of the second amendment. After some research, DC has one of the highest gun violence rates in the country. So it makes sense for the city to put a ban on the handgun as an attempt to lower that number. Most of the time handguns are the cheapest option and the easiest to get ones hands on. But in other places, owning a hunting rifle is perfectly legal? Hunting rifles are exponentially more powerful and dangerous than handguns. But the context in which they are used prevents a lot of strict regulations on use. So I think that the 2nd amendment needs to be reanalyzed, and there needs to be more specifications.
ReplyDeleteI also sort of agree with Britta in her statement, that many of the men in Guantanamo aren't even U.S. citizens, therefore they do not have the same rights afforded to us U.S. citizens. But on the other hand their captors are and because of that, they must follow the guidelines to holding and trying a prisoner, one because it is a U.S. federal prison, and two because its on american soil. So that is kind of unstable ground to be walking on for the politicians, because the argument can go either way.
There are many connections that I have seen between the nine and the yahoo article. The first thing would be that the Judicial branch definently has some power over the executive branch. On top of the federal court judges being appointed for life, they have the ability to name if a law is unconsitutional or not and they get to interpret the laws. The Judges can also make it very difficult for the president and therefore limit his power. I can see why the past few presidents have taken so much time in the choosing of the justices. The Supreme Court Justices work in office so much longer than the president. This makes the president work even harder to find who he should nominate because of the life term.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the issue with Guantanamo Bay, I completely disagree with President Obama's closing of the detention center. It is there for a reason and it makes sure that the terrorists in the world do not make anymore attacks on American soil. When it comes to national security, the rights of the people go out the window and sometimes that is for the good. Guantanamo Bay makes it very difficult for the detainees to escape and it is best to not have this on Amercican soil. President Obama's idea would be against the best wishes for the country. I also do not agree that the inmates should be moved to a maximum security prison in the US. Guantanamo Bay is there so that the terrorists are not on American soil. By moving the inmates, it totally defeats the purpose of having Guantanamo Bay. I believe that GB is one of the safest places on the planet and the inamtes will not be going anywhere soon.
I agree with Lax Bro when he talks about President Bush's policy about Guantanamo Bay. The 170+ detainees should stay there and not be moved. President Obama's ideas should be taken into consideration but, ultimatley not implemented. The terrorists are not American citizens so they should not be treated as the. Moving the terrorists into the area of America would be horrible. It could eventually lead them to wanting US citizenship. Therefore they would have the rights to fight against what is happening to them right now. Lax Bro has a few arguements that I agree with.
ReplyDeleteThis would then lead me to agree with another person by the name of Britta. The people detained in Guantanamo Bay are not naturally born citizens of the UNited States. Sure a couple of them are living here and trying to obtain citizenship, but they do not deserve the rights that the Citizens of America do. The people should remain the GB and the interregators should be able to do whatever means necessary to squeeze interesting information out of the terroritsts. This information could lead to the end of the wars in the Middle East and be able to get the world into a more peaceful place. Finally, it would bring the troops back home to their families.
I noticed that both the articles placed a lot of guessing in who might become a justice and how that justice would vote.I think Getmo should remain open the people sent there are there for a reason. I dont think these people deserve the same rights as normal Americans. In fact i dont think these people should be considered Americans because the want to do harm to this country, so why should we care what happens to them. I think the Supreme Court should stay out of this decision because these people dont deserve basic rights. Moving these people would be a terrible idea because they would have a better chance of escaping.
ReplyDeleteWe should be guided by the constitution but not ruled by it. It is an important document but it has gone out of date. I am glad that the hand gun banns were lifted because it clearly stats the people have the right to bear arms. There should be more strict regulations on hand guns but only banns should be on repeat criminals or people of that nature. I agree with Bryer judges should remain above politics and only rule on laws not have a side in that sort of business.
I agree with wright's comment that we shouldn't close Getmo and then expect to put the prisoners in another country because that would put our allies in a very awkward position and possibly give them more enemies. I also agree with his comments about the Constitution being so old that if we dont infer some point we would be left in the dark ages. I also agree with tyler smith in that Getmo is the best place to have criminals and there is a slim chance that anyone will ever escape. I also agree with Bobby in seeing that Bryer's main objective is the safety of the American people.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that in both articles the impact of the judiciary upon the executive branch was very important. In “The Nine”, both presidents chose their nominees to the Supreme Court with the utmost care so that the nominees would decide in a manner favorable to the president who appointed them. In this article, the actual effect of a ruling of the judiciary is noted, as when they “dealt many blows” to Bush by ruling that “detainees had the right to contest their detention in US courts and hear the evidence against them. ” As to the closing of Guantanamo Bay, I believe that people do have a certain right to freedom, as stated in the Constitution. If we deny this right to people of other countries, then how can we reasonably give ourselves the same right? As a country, we pride ourselves on being moral, and part of that is doing unto others as we would have done unto us. Therefore, we must give foreigners, even if they are terrorists, similar rights, including the right to contest their detention. This leads me to the conclusion that Guantanamo Bay either be closed or improved. In terms of what the Supreme Court should do about the law passed by the House, I believe that it should be overruled. No one wants a prisoner in their home state, but then again, no one wants to pay taxes, and there are already criminals in our states. It is true that the criminals are not of the same caliber, but if the Guantanamo Bay criminals are shared out amongst the nation and higher security measures are installed, I believe it is reasonable. Therefore I disagree with the House’s law and believe that it makes it too hard to transfer prisoners into the 50 states.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Breyer’s assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in the Constitution because, as he said, circumstances are always changing. Also, the Framers were human beings, and while their intentions were certainly honorable, they too can make mistakes. However, I think that Breyer does stray a bit too far from the actual wording of the Constitution. This relates to our discussion in class because it displays judicial activism versus judicial restraint/strict interpretation. Breyer favors activism while Wallace favors restraint. I agree more with the interpretations of the Supreme Court that led to handgun bans being overturned because I believe that the Constitution is supremely clear when it states that the people have the right to “bear arms”. In some cases, interpretation is necessary, but this is not one of them. Finally, I agree more with Roberts because I do not believe that is particularly good for one branch of the government, particularly a more public branch, to demean another branch because it causes the public to lose faith in the individual branches as well as in the government as a whole. However, people are entitled to their opinions, so Obama was within his rights. However, I do believe that it would have been better for him to be more discrete.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Wright's comment about the detainees in Guantanamo Bay. It is easier to think twice about shutting down Guantanamo Bay because the detainees in there are incredibly dangerous. They did something in order to make it to a facility like that. It also puts a lot of stress on other countries. It even says in the article that Obama is having trouble finding countries to transfer detainees. Now that I have thought about that it a little, it does make more sense to keep Guantanamo Bay open at least until there is a truly good alternative to the facility.
ReplyDeleteOut of the three branches of government, it seems like the executive branch has the most power. When the executive branch at least tries to become more powerful, the legislative branch can step in and balance the power out (checks and balances). From “The Nine” reading, the executive branch wanted a lot of influence over the Supreme Court by picking a nominee judge that will think/judge his way. But doing this almost disrupts the power of the branches. Even though all of them aren’t nominated by one president, the executive branch and the legislative branch think alike to a point where the scale is tipped over unevenly. I don’t agree with President Obama’s plan to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo bay. If Guantanamo Bay gets closed down, then where will all the prisoners go? There’s not a solid plan for the prisoners. If Obama does close down Guantanamo Bay and the prisoners do get released, no one’s going to want them. Cuba doesn’t want them and neither do we. And to have detainees free to go in the US is scary. I don’t agree much with the law that would prevent detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay from being transferred to the US. It’s not solving much, it’s just moving the problem/sweeping it under the rug. Our prisons are full, so adding 170+ more to them isn’t helpful for us. And no other state is going to accept them. This whole subject is very tricky and complicated, but I think the Supreme Court should keep the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, but just give them better conditions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Breyer’s assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in the Constitution. Our world is changing. 200 years ago, there was nothing digital. Our education system is better. Americans have evolved more. Following the constitution word for word will set us back in today’s world. We should follow it, but not to the extreme. Everyone has different views and opinions. But the majority of us will look at the Constitution through the same lenses; most of us will interpret it about the same. I agree with Bryer’s explanation of the 2nd amendment. We have the right to bear arms; we have the right to protect us. Although the British aren’t going to invade the US anytime soon, we still should have the right to protect ourselves with the proper weapons against home intruders, robbers, etc. Handguns should never be banned. They are given to us as a right under the Constitution, as long as we use them when appropriate. I agree with Breyer’s view of the situation. Justices aren’t politicians, and therefore should not be political. They shall have no emotional appeal towards a case and rule on the Constitution, what’s right and wrong.
Response to Tyler Bronwell:
ReplyDeleteI agree, the Supreme Court shouldn't get involved in the Guantanamo Bay case. We shouldn't house criminals who hate us, it's just not the right thing to do. If we move them, we'll probably keep on moving them from state to state, which will only cause more problems like expenses and the possible risk of escaping. The American people should be considered first in this situation, not the convicts or the government. They really should stay there, but with some extreme changes.
Both the nine article and this one focused on how much the public opinion of a supreme court justice mattered. Both articles reminded me of the checks and balances between the executive and judicial branch. The president makes the decision about Guantanamo bay but the supreme court can rule it unjust.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we should shut down the prison it's very existence goes against America's true policies. Even Hitler got his day in court I think we can the same courtesies to people we have water boarded a couple hundred times. The houses law seems to make the the decision to move the detainees a lot harder for the president. I don't understand why we can't keep them in America rather than a foreign country.
I agree with Breyer it makes absolutely no sense to apply the constitution literally when it was written hundreds of years ago. It was clearly made to be interpreted and applied, like Breyer said the wording is not specific but general its not like a set of instruction. I don't think that there should be any kind of gun regulation the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms.
I agree with Amanda Reilly as American's we really do pride our selves in our morals and what we are doing with Guantanamo shatters our reputation in the world as a moral country. People of a foreign country deserve the same constitutional rights that regular US citizens get.
ReplyDeleteThe connections I noticed between the Guantanamo Bay story and “The Nine”, is the issue of the Executive Branch versus the Judicial Branch. The powers vested in each branch can sometimes cause problems for the two, and bring up issues about what should be done in certain situations. Since the president chooses judges, some may think the Executive Branch has more influence over the Judicial Branch, however, from the article, we see that the Judicial decisions can greatly affect the Executive by not allowing the president to pass legislation. The ability to hold the detainees is being limited, which the court and president take opposing sides on. This shows us why the president takes so much time and thought into choosing a judge for the Supreme Court, and why he must pick someone who is likely to side with his ideologies. I don’t really agree with Obama’s plan to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison because if no one knows where to put all the detainees then where would they go? I don’t want them in America if they are thought to be so dangerous. Maybe once there is an actual plan the prison could be closed, but they should definitely not be put on a mainland prison. I don’t want the law passed if that makes the detainees brought to the U.S. No state is going to want them, and I definitely don’t want them anywhere near California. I don’t think the Supreme Court should overturn the law.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Breyer said about being guided by the values in our Constitution because so much has changed over the years, and we can’t be stuck living in a world when the Constitution was written. I liked what he said about interpreting the consitituion when it says “the right to bear arms.” There’s a difference between handguns and grenades, so if we stuck exactly to the constitution, then that gives everyone to right to bear grenades and bombs? I don’t think so. This deals with the difference between strict and loose interpretation of the Constitution, and how every judge interprets it differently and are able to do so. I’m a little iffy on the 2nd amendment part because yes, I agree people should have the right to feel safe with their handguns if that’s what makes them feel better, but also I liked what Breyer said about Madison. His come back to Wallace saying, well if you have a problem you can get on the subway and shoot guns was kind of funny. On the State of the Union, I thought what Obama said seemed kind of rude to the judges, but I like what Breyer said about it. He realizes that their decisions will always be criticized and viewed sometimes harshly by the public, so why take it so personally?
There are so many different opinions so one shouldn’t be such a big deal.
Rather than repeating the "judicial check on executive power" response for the 30th (estimation) time, I would like to comment on the connection between Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and GTMO. The Chief Justice was appointed, in part, because of his protection of executive power in the Hamdam v. Rumsfeld decision. I find it interesting that this specific example of executive power is so often challenged in the nations highest appellate courts.
ReplyDeleteRather than taking a specific stance on the question of whether or not I agree with Obama's decision, I intend to examine it objectively and look solely at the constitutionality of the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists(Judicial restraint :)). I think that the Court's decision in Boumediene v. Bush was wrong when looked at through a constitutional lens. Firstly, the guidelines specified in the Detainee Treatment Act confer the same essential protections of Habeas Corpus, therefore the Suspension Clause is inapplicable(Scalia, dissenting opinion, Boumediene v. Bush). Furthermore, Habeas Corpus does not and never has applied to foreign aliens held on foreign soil, so the court had no right to intervene in the executive power. Therefore, while certainly understanding opposition to indefinite suspension, I do not see it as an infringement on the constitution.
I do not think that the law is inherently unconstitutional. I am personally a little put-off by the idea of holding suspected terrorists in the United States, as it seems to invite danger, even if the probability of actual attack is small.
I agree with the originalist interpretation of the constitution and with texualism in statutory interpretation, so I, therefore, disagree with Justice Breyer. Placing trust in judges to correctly interpret the "intent" of laws puts far too much faith in the individual judges. This naive belief in constant improvement in society is dangerous and undoes the safety net provided by the Bill of Rights. I also disagree with Breyer's assertion that interpreting the "spirit" of the constitution is not legislating. Under the practice of judicial review, the Court has the ability to decide if a law is constitutional or not. It should then be understood that it is a legislative role to create laws that are modern manifestations of principles enumerated in the constitution. For a judge to partake in such practices would be a breach of the clear divisions of power explicitly dealt with in the constitution.
After writing a rather lengthy essay last year on the issue of gun control, I ardently agree with the opinion of the Court in the Heller decision. From a historical perspective, the 2nd amendment has always conferred an individual right to gun ownership and to apply legislation that suspends that right would be a clear violation of the constitution. If one believes this law to be unjust or improper for modern society, amend the constitution.
I agree with Chief Justice Roberts. If the president blatantly attacks a Supreme Court decision and misrepresents it to the entire country, he has made the institution political. By doing so, he removes all reason for the Court to be present.
Response to Mia:
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of the points you made, and I like that you pointed out the differences in our world today compared to when the Constitution was made. It's so true that our world has changed in technology and education, and our world could be brought back if we followed the Constitution word for word. I also loved how you said, although the british aren't going to invade us, we still should be able to protect ourselves.
I would like to use this opportunity to correct a mistake made by Sean Whaley. Hitler committed suicide before he could be captured by the allies. I would surely agree with the principles in closing GTMO if it was preserving some honorable, time-tested, American tradition, but it is most obviously not for reason I extrapolate upon in some detail in my original post. Throughout America's history, the writ of habeas corpus has never applied to enemy combatants help on foreign soil. It is not, as many of my fellow AP Government students have mistakenly said, preserving any well established moral principle by closing the detention facility.
ReplyDeleteThe connections I saw between this article and “The Nine”, are that both show that the other branches of government definitely check to prevent the president from gaining too much power. In the article, Obama can’t move detainees because cases haven’t been heard yet, just like how in “The Nine” Congress could deny a president’s judicial nomination. Both of these examples show how the other branches of government work to limit and keep the executive branch in “check”. Another connoection is that in the article they were trying to predict how certain judges would rule and where they stand on issues, just like how in “The Nine” the president would try to predict how judges would rule on certain issues when deciding whether or not to nominate that person. I think I support Bush’s policy on keeping detainees in Cuba and support the House’s law that prevents detainees from residing in the US. The Supreme Court shouldn’t overturn this law. Many people have stated that they wouldn’t want these detainees to be in their state prisons, so I believe that the majority of people would feel more comfortable if the detainees stayed in Cuba rather than were transported to America.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Breyer’s assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution. The world is continuously changing, so this loose constructionalist view to apply the basic values of the constitution to changes in technology, weapons, etc. makes the most sense. I agree with him in how he says that the framers had no way of knowing what the future would hold, so it isn’t right to strictly follow every word they wrote in the Constitution during modern times. This connects to our class discussion because this point of view represents loose constructionalism and judicial activism→allowing the court to follow the Constitution a little looser. In regard to the second amendment, I agree with Breyer’s beliefs. The protection and safety of Americans is more important than following the Constitution word for word. The Constitution never specifically says anything about the advanced weapons we have today, such as machine guns or torpedoes, so I definitely agree with Breyer that the right to bear arms should be regulated and not open. I think that Chief Justice Roberts’ statement that what occurred at the State of the Union was “troubling”, but I can’t deny the fact that Breyer’s statement that that is just Roberts’ opinion is completely true. A defining and unique value in America is that everyone does have opinion and the right to express it, and that is one of the things that makes our country so great. My opinion is the same at Roberts’, but I agree with Breyer’s response to Wallace’s question.
Article: One obvious example is the court’s decision against Bush and his policy towards detainees. The court argued that the detainees have the right to trial unlike Bush, who argued that the Geneva Convention is not protected by the Constitution. This is related to “The Nine” because Roberts was the justice who argued that the Constitution does not include the Geneva Convention therefore Article Three of the Convention isn’t a given right. I fall in the middle with the decisions; I think that Guantanamo Bay should stay open while the detainees receive rights in the Constitution. Article three of the Geneva Convention argues for a humane treatment of prisoners while the Living Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Since a naval base is United States soil, the Constitution applies, even if it isn’t a state. Also moving the detainees would cost millions, even billions of tax payer money. Transportation as well as funding the prisons and the construction of new ones since the prisons in the United States are crowded will add to the bill. I think that the Supreme Court should rule giving detainees rights as given by the Constitution but not by the Geneva Convention.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Britta when she said that Justice Breyer is considered a loose constructionalist of the words of the Constitution, but a strict constructionalist of the Constitution’s values. I think that is an excellent way to state his beliefs, and I completely agree with him. The framers originally created the Constitution to protect and build a solid foundation for Americans, but as time passes and things change, the exact wording of the Constitution may not fit modern day America. Interpreting what the framers wrote in the Constitution to be more “modern” allows for the framer’s intent and for the Constitution’s values to not be compromised.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading DJ's very persuasive response to Justice Breyer's interpretations, I have started to rethink my whole heart agreements with Breyer. DJ makes an excellent point that interpreting the "intent" of the law places far too much faith and power in the judges' hands. Now that I think of it, this is very much like legislating, which should remain in the legislative branch. Although, maybe I am naive, according to DJ, but I do believe our country has progressed since the creation of the Constitution, so although he makes an excellent argument in favor of judicial restraint, I think justice breyer, as Britta says "Breyer wants a loose construction of the words of the Constitution, but a strict construction of its values". In that sense, i still support Breyer's decisions.
ReplyDeleteI found a few similarities between “The Nine” and this article. First, the article reminded me of the Hamdan Vs. Rumsfeld case because they both concern Guantanamo Bay and suspected terrorist detention policies. Also, I saw the competition between the Executive and Judicial branches over the power of the Executive branch, in the case of the article, over holding detainees without giving them a trial.
ReplyDeleteI agree with President Bush’s policy that the prison should remain open. However inhumane it may look, I trust that the United States Government, especially in the intelligence sector, would have reason to be detaining these people. Moreover, if we have a perfectly good prison in Cuba, why would we close it just to lock them up somewhere else? From what I know, the prison at Guantanamo Bay is state-of-the-art and will not be cheap to replace.
I also agree with this law that would prevent detainees to be transferred to the United States because I believe that they would be safer In Guantanamo Bay, and it would be much more convenient to have all of these suspected terrorists in the same place, because to my understanding, their situations may be similar. I think the Supreme Court should hurry up and hear the pending cases before they do anything else.
I do agree with Breyer’s assertion because it is very true that the Framers could not in their wildest dreams imagine how our country would look 230 years in the future. Therefore, interpreting the word instead of the values of the Constitution would serve very little purpose at all, and would be a detriment to the progression of our country.
I agree with Breyer’s explanation of the 2nd Amendment because like everything else, the Framers could like for-see the impact guns would make on our country. I am not sure if they would have been able to see automatic handguns and automatic rifles in the hands of regular people being used for crime. This is another case where the Constitution must be interpreted in a way that fits our current society.
I agree again with Breyer’s explanation that everyone has the right to speak their mind and them doing that cannot be held against them. I think that Breyer is right to say that the job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution to the best of their individual ability and then rule on court cases based on that and that only.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found Natalie’s response enlightening and agreeable. I very much enjoyed her analysis of the similarities between the article and “The Nine”. I saw a few of the same things but I learned from her why the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is such a political process. I liked the way she talked about the relationship between the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch. I also agree with Ms. Bailey’s opinion of the Guantanamo Bay situation, and I too see terrorists being held on our soil quite terrifying. I also agree with her opinions of the Breyer interview and how the country has changed since the Framers wrote the Constitution. I also got a good chuckle out of her interpretation of the comment during the gun control segment about the subway.
ReplyDeleteI would like to clarify a point I previously made. I believe that the country as a whole has made tremendous steps forward throughout its history, but there have also been mistakes made along the way. The constitution and bill of rights are constants that prevent us from ever digressing to a point of no return(thanks for pointing this out, Cassie).
ReplyDeleteThere are many parallels that can be drawn between 'The Nine' and the article. For starters both articles prove that the Executive branch can hold a lot of power over the judicial branch. For example, the president can nominate judges that hold the same ideologies, and can single handedly shut down a prison. But, the judicial branch holds about as much power. They are able to declare an action as uncostitutional, and can have major roles in establishing significant laws(such as one involving Guantanimo Bay).
ReplyDeleteI agree with President Obama's decision to close the Guatanimo Bay prison. Whether it be constitutional to hold the detainees or not I beleive it is within the president's power to shut down the prison if he see's fit. If it turns out that it is not for the betterment of the U.S. the supreme court can decide to use judicial review. I agree with the law that prevents the detainees from coming to the U.S.. These detainees have taken part in terrorist acts against the U.S.
I agree with Breyers that we should be guided by the values outlined in the constituiton. This is because the constitution is outdated and does not include a lot of modern issues. This would be considered judicial activism.
I agree with the handguns being overturned because I beleive everybody has a right to feel safe. The second amendment discusses the security of the free state which can easily include the use of handguns.
I agree with Breyer's statment. I agree with the fact that the Justices are ment to give their opinion and remain quiet.
Video: I agree more with Bryer on going with the values in the Constitution. The Constitution was written by the founders of this nation not knowing if the nation they created will still exist after they are gone and I don’t believe that they thought about all the different events that would change this country and it’s Constitution. Therefore, I believe that by following the exact wording would weaken the United States as time passed and if Amendments are used to change the Constitution millions of times to salvage the wreck that may happen, and then the country would have at least drafted and enacted three new Constitutions and maybe more. By looking at the values and the meaning of the Constitution, growth is allowed. The big theme in history is “continuity and change” and taking the Constitution and interpreting it in many ways allows for smooth changes, with old laws being able to be carried forward but having a different meaning than it originally had when it was created. I agree with Bryer too with the second amendment. The amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms for protection from the government and as time progressed, that need is slowly disappearing. Most citizens would state that they own a firearm because they are afraid that a dangerous person who may own a firearm may come and harm them and their family or because they prefer the gun for sport. I see their point therefore I agree with them and let them have firearms but like Bryer argued what kind? To what extent is this amendment still valid? A small hand gun, a sports gun are all fine but when people walk around carrying the same type of weapons that law enforcement use, everything crosses the line. Finally, I didn’t understand the last part but to the extent of what I understand, the situation is based on the different justices’ opinions. The act done by the Obama administration was uncalled for and immature and I side with Roberts but incidents like that happen anywhere and to be bothered by it shows weakness. To care about politics and politician’s point of views and the public’s view of the situation isn’t the court’s job, their job is to interpret the law and determine its constitutionality to best of their ability. If people complain about it or rejoice about it is a private matter, I agree with Bryer on that. If judges were to care about public opinion, they wouldn’t be judges, they would be politicians and this country’s legal system would have more wrinkles and creases than it currently has.
ReplyDeleteVideo:I agree more with Bryer on going with the values in the Constitution. The Constitution was written by the founders of this nation not knowing if the nation they created will still exist after they are gone and I don’t believe that they thought about all the different events that would change this country and it’s Constitution. Therefore, I believe that by following the exact wording would weaken the United States as time passed and if Amendments are used to change the Constitution millions of times to salvage the wreck that may happen, and then the country would have at least drafted and enacted three new Constitutions and maybe more. By looking at the values and the meaning of the Constitution, growth is allowed. The big theme in history is “continuity and change” and taking the Constitution and interpreting it in many ways allows for smooth changes, with old laws being able to be carried forward but having a different meaning than it originally had when it was created. I agree with Bryer too with the second amendment. The amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms for protection from the government and as time progressed, that need is slowly disappearing. Most citizens would state that they own a firearm because they are afraid that a dangerous person who may own a firearm may come and harm them and their family or because they prefer the gun for sport. I see their point therefore I agree with them and let them have firearms but like Bryer argued what kind? To what extent is this amendment still valid? A small hand gun, a sports gun are all fine but when people walk around carrying the same type of weapons that law enforcement use, everything crosses the line.
ReplyDeleteVideo Pt 2: Finally, I didn’t understand the last part but to the extent of what I understand, the situation is based on the different justices’ opinions. The act done by the Obama administration was uncalled for and immature and I side with Roberts but incidents like that happen anywhere and to be bothered by it shows weakness. To care about politics and politician’s point of views and the public’s view of the situation isn’t the court’s job, their job is to interpret the law and determine its constitutionality to best of their ability. If people complain about it or rejoice about it is a private matter, I agree with Bryer on that. If judges were to care about public opinion, they wouldn’t be judges, they would be politicians and this country’s legal system would have more wrinkles and creases than it currently has.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dj'S comment about the constitutionality of the closing of Guantanimo Bay. I don't beleive it is a infringment on the cosntitution as well. The president was well within his rights by closing the prison.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Sean:
ReplyDeleteKeeping them in the country would cost a lot of money, adding to the deficit which our generation and the future generations would have to pay for. I agree that the "rumored" activities in GITMO is against everything this country stands for.
PS: Hitler never made it to Earth court.
Connections I found between this article and "The Nine" is the obvious situtation of the checks and balances between the judicial and executive branch. Even though the executive branch does hold a lot of power over the judicial (ie appointing judges), the judicial is starting to make a come-back over the executive as they view the Guantanamo cases. As the article said, "Federal judges have already reviewed 57 cases and found detention to be unjustified in all but one third of them."
ReplyDeleteAs for the military facility, I find that I believe that it is a good idea to keep the prison there. I remember when they were trying to figure out where they would put the detainees, and Camp Pentleton was one of the ideas. However, in this article I believe it said something about moving them somewhere else, but still, if we were to have them in Camp Pentleton, that'd be a little too close for comfort. (Well I guess this sort of goes for number 3). I think that they should keep the base alive in Cuba and keep the detainees in there. They were put there for a reason, its not like we'd just lock up anyone.
I agree (I think) with the House ruling, however I'm a little confused with the way its worded. Bottom line, I think Guantanamo Bay should stay open and they should not bring the detainees into the US. Except if it is in the middle of no where in Alaska...
I think that as of this 21st century, the Constitution should be more of guidance. Like Breyer said, the Framers didn't know about internet, television, etc. But I do think that we should try to follow the Constitution for things that are specifically spelled out. This goes along with our discussion in class of the different types of judicial interpretation because some have a more strict, where as people like Breyer have a more loose. I guess I could say I'm inbetween for this one.
I would have to agree with the Supreme Court for this example because, like I said, it is specifically spelled out in the Constitution, so we should follow it. However, maybe I'm just sitting in my ignorant bubble. I do not know how bad the violence is in cities like D.C. and Chicago, so maybe there is a reason to ban handguns.
I think that it was terribly awkward for the more conservative Supereme Court Justices. That was unneccessary for the President to call them out like that and to have that on live air. Like Roberts said, itwas very troubling. The government should be working together to help solve problems, they may disagree, but there is no reason to do that.
Just like in the reading “The Nine” this article talks about the resigning of a Justice. Justice John Paul Stevens resigned in 2010, and was replaced by Elena Kagan, who is expected to excuse herself from the cases since she previously served as solicitor general representing the White House before the court and was close to discussions about Guantanamo policies. This means the Supreme Court will rule 4-4 on the cases, which would have the Appeals Court ruling, prevail and return them to square one. This brings me to “The Nine” when it goes through each president’s process of choosing a candidate and how important it is to look at the history and background of the candidate. Now the new Justice can’t help out and the President is less one vote for these cases in the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with President Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo Bay. I agree with President Bush’s policy and that the prison should remain open and the 170+ detainees should stay locked up in Cuba. They were put there for a reason before and if it is still justifiable then there is no reason why they should leave Guantanamo Bay.
I agree with the law passed by the House that would prevent detainees currently being held at Guantanamo from being transferred to the United States. I agree with this because the detainees are not American and they do not have the right of a trial or to be treated like a U.S citizen. If any trial is to go on with the detainees at Guantanamo Bay it should be dealt with by the military court since they are Prisoners of War.
I do not agree with Breyer and his lose interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution should not change with the here and now. Breyer is basically saying the Constitution should be rewritten every year because something new comes out. I agree with Wallace’s notion by following the exact wording of the Constitution.
I also disagree with Breyer’s explanation of the 2nd Amendment. I agree with the Supreme Court that you should have the right to bare arms and that should not be restricted. Everyone should have the right to be able to protect them selves. If they were to rule to say that guns can be restricted then basically they are saying they can change anything the Constitution says because the day and age needs it changed.
I feel that the Justice’s should go to the State of the Union because they are a part of the government but it’s not mandatory. I feel that since they are Justice’s they should be emotionless because that is there job; they are supposed to be non-bias. They have to understand that of course not everyone is going to agree with their ruling, but that’s just how it works. They rule based on their view of the Constitution, not with parties or whose side they are on.
In response to Kendall Martin, I like the parallel’s she used with respect to “The Nine”.
ReplyDeleteI would hope that President Obama is acting for the betterment of the United States and not under his own agenda. We need to protect American’s and treat terrorists as war criminals not as U.S citizens.
I can’t agree that the Constitution is merely a vague outline of the American spirit. I feel the Constitution as crafted by the founding fathers’ is the foundation of America and should remain as the document that determines the direction and future that America was founded on. You can’t break the foundation and leave the structure standing, you must make the structure on the foundation.
Both the article and the "The Nine" focus on the different powers of the Executive branch and the Judicial branch. The Executive branch in selecting the court judges can place appointees into office who have many of the same ideologies and a favorable judicial temperament; however, these judges do not have to follow or side with the President in the rulings because they are given life time terms. Controversy depends on how closely the ideologies of the judges in the Supreme Court align with the views of the President. Therefore, if the majority of Supreme Court have opposing opinions, friction can arise between the two branches. Another similarity between the two is the amount of time given to making these key decisions. In "The Nine," the Presidents spent many long nights choosing an appointee for the court just like the Supreme Court judges will take months to finalize their decision about the detainees. I do not think that the prison should be closed because this will only cause more trouble. We do not have anywhere else to keep these prisoners and placing them in the U.S. could place the American citizens in danger. I do not think that any citizen would want one of these jails established next to their neighborhood. In regards to the trials for these detainees, I do not think that we should bring them to the U.S. to be tried because they are not U.S. citizens. The right to a jury is guaranteed to U.S. citizens. Therefore, war criminals must be tried by other methods.
ReplyDeleteI think that Breyer was very convincing in his argument and brought up some good points. I can see both points of view and find it difficult to pinpoint the "right one." I do, however, think that broad interpretation of the Constitution gives too much power to the Supreme Court. This leads me to lean further on the idea of original, or strict, interpretation of the Constitution. I think for the most part, judges should stay close to the wording of the Constitution and not stray too far into their own interpretations. If the judges are able to interpret the Constitution as they please, they could make irrational decisions that greatly impact the country. In the case of gun control, I believe it is wrong because the Constitution specifically provides this right. This should not be up for interpretation because it is directly there. I agree with Chief Justice Robert's statement that the President's comments were "troubling" because I think it was inappropriate and inconsiderate.
I agree with DJ that a broad interpretation of the Constitution violates their specific role given to them by the Constitution. This is stepping too far into the legislative branch's powers. If the Judicial Branch is able to loosely interpret the Constitution, the integral checks and balance system could be harmed. Each branch must confine themselves to the assigned powers in order to keep the system working.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading that both Bush and Obama have sought to keep the executive branch in control of the U.S. detention policy in the ‘war on terrorism,’ I immediately thought of the checks and balances system. Though Obama was able to use his executive privilege to extend the detainment period beyond 2010 (as he missed his deadline), the Supreme Court found that the majority of these people are innocent. So, should the judicial branch’s evidence allow the innocent prisoners to be released, or should the president continue detaining them unjustly and indefinitely? The simple solution would be to follow the Rule of Four (regarding Supreme Court justices’ votes), but unfortunately, without Kagan’s vote, the result would be a deadlock 4-4. This throws the issue back into Obama’s hands. I now realize how important the number ‘9’ (of Supreme Court justices) and the Rule of Four are in deciding cases.
ReplyDeleteThough I don’t know the details and circumstances of these Guantanamo Bay detainees, I feel I would agree more with President Bush’s policy that the prison should remain open. Why risk bringing these potential terrorists to jails our own country, when this one is functioning perfectly? We can’t just shoo them off to other countries or send them home; that could just lead to more terrorist activity. And if they are terrorists, they probably hate the U.S. now even more than before for holding them. Releasing all that pent up, shared anger is just asking for trouble. So, I think the easiest and safest option would be to keep the prison running. It has obviously been doing its job since its opening, so why make the change?
Again, I believe that the Guantanamo Bay prison should remain open. There is just too much of a risk. I absolutely believe that all detainees have the right to defend themselves in a trial. But, the guilty shouldn’t be locked away anywhere else BUT Guantanamo Bay. It is unfair to put other countries and our own states at risk by holding these violent, sick prisoners. The prison has been holding over 170 prisoners securely for many years now, I just don’t see any reason to change the system. One more argument- these bodies would take up space in our prisons, which are reserved for our own country’s criminals. Judges should never have to worry about there not being enough room to detain a dangerous person.
I agree with Breyer’s assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in the Constitution; not necessarily word for word. Obviously, the founders couldn’t foresee the age of the internet, or even when airplanes would be considered commerce. They specially crafted the Constitution to be the “lay of the land,” but also to be open to interpretation for changing times. It is the job of the judicial branch to adapt these values to our ever-changing society.
Again, I agree with Breyer’s explanation of the 2nd Amendment (as a judicial activist.) Both understand that the Founders had no idea of the types of “arms” that would be available to future generations. However, Breyer reasons that the Founders would not approve of dangerous handguns being common, while Wallace points out that Americans are given the “right to bear arms.” Breyer reasons that the underlying values in the Constitution are much more powerful than words.
I agree with Chief Justice Robert’s statement that it was “troubling” for Obama to call the Supreme Court out in such a manner. Though political parties are inevitable, and have different opinions on issues, I don’t believe that on air (during the State of the Union nonetheless) is the proper time to call the opposition out. The U.S. government should strive to be united. If it takes arguing to solve problems, it best that this take place privately. Obama’s comment portrayed the Supreme Court as weak, and less important than the executive branch, when in reality, the executive branch couldn’t function without the aid of the judiciary.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis article is a perfect present day example of “The Nine.” “The Supreme court dealt many blows to the then president George W. Bush's Guantanamo policies in 2004, 2006 and 2008, where they ruled in previous cases that detainees had the right to contest their detention in US courts and hear the evidence against them.” The Guantanamo Bay controversy shows that Supreme Court justices do not have to rule the way their appointer necessarily wanted them to. This shows how justices can act independently from the politics of their arrival to the court. Based on the values of the constitution, I believe the framers would allow these “war crimes” to be tried on our soil. Modern values suggest that they should not be detained on our soil, but in another country. But, when you think about it I would rather have them closer to us to be observed, so I would not mind them being detained in the US. A possible solution could be perhaps reopening Alcatraz or another jail that is isolated, but still technically in the United States?
ReplyDeleteOn Obama’s plan to close the facility at Guantanamo Bay, I believe that it should be closed due to all the controversy it is causing. A new facility is obviously required to move the detainees. Refer to my previous answer for a possible solution. The G.B. facility should not be closed until a designated detention area is guaranteed.
Overall, I do agree with the law that the house passed about not allowing the detainees to be transferred here. The Supreme Court should be working with congress to find a new detention facility in this hemisphere. Countries do not want the detainees in their country either, but I am sure a country like Mexico would not mind us keeping our war criminals in the barren desert in a new facility. The Supreme Court should mandate a new Facility to be built somewhere rapidly whether if be in a foreign country or not. But I suggest it stays relatively close to the United States border so that trials can be held for these criminals on domestic soil.
There is no way that the Framers could have accounted for all of the components of today’s society. I strongly agree with Breyer’s argument that we have to learn the gist of want the framers wanted behind their words in the constitution rather than just the literally meaning. A lot of ideas came together to come up with the identity of the constitution. The values are very important to comprehend if this country’s democracy is supposed to work how the Framers wanted it to in their mindset. Loose constructions make the most sense to me in today’s world.
Gun control is always going to be a big deal, and I am going to summarize how I feel on it in a couple lines. No rifle with a firing rate of semi-automatic or higher will be sold to people without a background check and a strictly regulated and enforced license necessary to bear these “large” arms. Fires per second (FPS) is the reasonable way to limit guns from the general public. A limit has to be drawn somewhere, but never should a fully automatic weapon should be sold to the public nor should people not be allowed to bear arms at all.
I believe Breyer has been around long enough to separate himself from the politics of the situation. Chief Justice Roberts knows better than to get himself involved or be affected by a political statement made by anyone. It is human nature to have different perspectives on things, but in the judicial department you have to just rule on the enforcement and execution of laws. They never need to appeal to political personas at all.
I agree with Stephanie that the prisoners being held at Guatanamo Bay are not U.S. citizens and therefore do not have the right to a fair trial (guaranteed to U.S. citizens!). So, they must be proven innocent by other means than the U.S. court system. However, I still believe that Supreme Court members are appointed because they are qualified to make decisions for the whole country. They should be trusted to interpret the Constitution the best they can (in the best interest of the country), rather than be limited by wording. The values and intentions of the founding fathers still apply to the world we live in.
ReplyDeleteI am going to have to respectfully disagree with DJ and Stephanie. If the Supreme Court strictly followed the constitution's words, nothing would ever progress. Human progression shows that linear solutions to problems with multiplying variables never work. By this I mean many new problems are approaching in the future and standard, set rules for how to deal with these problems are not going to improve how they are solved or how quickly they are resolved.
ReplyDeleteNews Article: After reading both this news article as well as "The Nine" I realized how great of an impact the Supreme Court has on the President's policy making and appointments. As shown in "The Nine" the president painstakingly will review long lists of people who he believes will be a good nomination to the Supreme Court, partially to appease the Senate but also to elect a person who will agree with his policies and prevent picking a person who could in any way limit the power he has. In the news article there is a quote that says " Within the Constitution's separation-of-powers structure, few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the Executive to imprison a person." So pretty much it is the Supreme Courts job to take away powers from the Executive Branch when they see fit. Both articles allude to the Guantanamo Bay conflict, in "The Nine" they talk about the Hamden vs Rumsfeld case, and in this article they explain how both Bush and Obama sought to maintain there power to control the war on terrorism, when the Supreme Court was trying to take that power away. I disagree with Obama's plan to close Guantanamo Bay, not only would that create a extreme security risk to not only our's but other countries but it also imposes a great burden on the states, who do not want such dangerous person residing withing their borders. I believe moving the Guantanamo Bay detainees should stay under US control, preferably where they are currently in Cuba. I personally would not want terrorists being held in my state.
ReplyDeleteI agree a lot with what Amanda said about the Gitmo case. How can we talk about how men have inalienable rights, but then decide that some men's rights can be alienated? So much for the Declaration of Independence... There are tons of interpretations about what government's main purpose is. Some say it's to serve the people (which serves as justification for stuff like industry regulation, consumer protection, and healthcare intervention). Others say the government should preserve it's interests and the interests of America (which serves as justification for foreign intervention, the Gitmo detainees, etc). In the Gitmo case, the purpose of the action taken by the government is to protect people. The idea is we need protection from terrorists, and the ends justify the means. Terrorists want to kill Americans, why should we respect their rights? I'm all for that logic, it really makes a lot of sense. However, the Gitmo case is just too dangerous to be allowed. The people in Gitmo have not been proven in a fair court of law that they are terrorists. Someone else decided they were terrorists. Just who that someone is is a mystery since the government keeps so many secrets that its impossible to keep those in charge accountable on matters of national security. For all we know, some of those detainees are innocent people who were taken into custody because some CIA/NSA/USDHA/whatever crazy acryonym you can think of operations officer decided they were terrorists. There's no accountability, and people's rights are being stripped away. Constitutionally speaking, this is more dangerous for Americans than it is a safety precaution. If we start taking away these peoples rights who have no legal status (we already have), we're setting dangerous legal precedents unless the Courts rule in favor of detainees having the right to protest their incarceration. One can argue that we are being protected from terrorists. But what are we losing in exchange? I mean besides the tax dollars that vanish into some secret intelligence agency money pit... There's also the loss of our morale standards. And the loss of our Constitutional rights, which are at increasingly at risk with each move the government takes without legal grounds to do so. The bigger danger here is that of our liberties being stripped away from us, one precedent at a time by a government that has become increasing Statist in the years since the New Deal, the War on Terror, etc etc
ReplyDeleteThe connections I noticed in this story and The Nine is that the Judiciary Branch and the Executive Branch continue to rival each other in political decisions. The executive branch influences who gets to be on the court, but the court in turn influences what the executive branch can do. In this case, the Supreme Court limits the executive branch by stating that the detainees cannot stay in American soil.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Obama's decision to close down Guantanamo Bay. It hasn't really done any bad for us, so why have dangerous criminals be put in our country? I agree with Bush's policies regarding the prison. The prisoners probably aren't even citizens of the United States, so why should we give them a trial?
I think it's absolutely a fantastic idea that the House is passing a law that would not allow the detainees to be held in America. Who wants really dangerous criminals/former terrorists in America?! Not me. The Supreme Court should rule that the law is totally Constitutional.
I agree with Breyer’s assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined by the Constitution. We need to use the Constitution as a living document, and times are continually changing. This links to our class discussion because the Constitution can be interpreted in many different ways. When regarding court cases, I believe that it should be in people's best interest, and not just strictly to what the Constitution has.
I agree with the handgun bans being overturned. People need to feel safe, and the second amendment gives them just that right. We should be altering these amendments.
I agree with Breyer. The Judges have to be present there, and they must remain as impartial as they can be, even if it means having no emotion in the case. I think Breyer made the right point that the judges were so separated from other political members. It is what the Constitution wanted, and so continue to remain that way.
Breyer Interview: I do not agree with Breyer's assertion that we should flexibly be guided by the values put forth in the Constitution. Yes, I agree that we should follow those values but I do not agree that it should be done flexibly. Although the Constitution was not written for our day and age, and at the time there was not the technology and problems present today, but I do not believe that the Framers would want Supreme Court judges attempting to interpret or foresee what they might have said if they had written the Constitution in our modern world. Breyer believes in judicial activism, the idea that judges should look to the underlying principles laid forth in the Constitution, but that the court can and should be given the power of implement new policy through their rulings. Breyer believes that Supreme Court judges should take the values in the Constitution and apply them "to the changing world." I do not agree with Breyer's explanation of the 2nd amendment because it is clearly stated that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Breyer's explanation was that its not a matter of policy by attempting to put a ban on owning handguns but is rather following what the framers intended in the 2nd ammendment. I do not understand how Breyer can read such an easy sentence that clearly spells out its meaning and come back and say that the sentence meant the complete opposite. Yes as he states it is important to go back and view the history of the why the amendment was written but in the end how do you truly know Madison's intention when writing the amendment. Haha I pretty much also disagree with Breyer's view of President Obama's comment about the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case. State of the Union addresses are intended to show the American People what is going on with the government and portray a sense a unity between the branches. Obama's comment shows a lack of unity between the branches, and I just don't feel that he should be criticizing the Supreme Court on national TV. I agree with Breyer that it is peoples job to criticize opinions and have different beliefs, but in regards to the President I think he should in some ways keep those opinions to himself, especially because he serves as the head of our Gov.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Sara said about the prison situation. She had an excellent find on the quote " Within the Constitution's separation-of-powers structure, few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the Executive to imprison a person." It is definitely under the power of the Court to regulate the actions of the Executive Branch. The judges may seem like they are above politics, but that may just be their job. They need to overlook the Constitutionality of the laws, and the Executive Branch has to deal with that.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Nine”, the issue of the base was very important for President Bush in his nomination of Chief Justice Roberts. Bush was trying to expand the power of the executive branch, which is definitely an issue shown here in this passage. I think the issue over the base is a very tricky situation. Our legal system says that they are not guilty until proven so, which has often not been the case with detainees at the base. However, I know that evidence can be hard to find and bad people would probably be cut loose. I would imagine that the people at the base have built up a grudge against the United States and feel nothing other than contempt for the States. I think releasing them at this point would just cause a back lash of attacks from the angered inmates. I definitely agree that the detainees should not be moved to the States. Any possible escapes or rescue attempts by allies would directly put citizens in danger which would be contradictory to the purpose of holding them. I think in passing the law, Congress intentionally made it harder to close the bass without directly having to deal with the situation. It would achieve their same goal but upset a lot less people because they would not understand. I think the Supreme Court needs to make a decision so the case can be ultimately settled and the repercussions of the decision can be implemented. Now what the correct decision is, I do not know.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Breyer’s argument that we should view the Constitution based on its values. I think the intentions of the Framers should be what is considered and respected. Too much is different and changing for us to view it based only on the words provided in the document. This is more in line with loose construction and judicial activism because it looks for ideas, not words from the Constitution. For the policy on guns, I think it is important to view the intention of the Framers. Their purpose was for the people to be able to control the government if it so got out of hand, like they had faced with the revolution. I don’t think the Framers saw guns as weapons to be used against fellow citizens like they are so often done now. For this, I agree with Breyer that gun control policies should exist, but in relativity. I think it would portray a false image that everybody was perfectly happy if Obama had not aroused the argument. I think progress comes from discontent and troubles and I think it will come in our control. I feel it is important for people to have faith in their country.
The "nine" shows the power of the president to elect those who share his views or opinions. This article showed the power of the court to check the presidents power. Personally I think that Guantanamo as a prison should be shut down and the prisoners moved. I also agree in congress's choice in keeping the prisoners away from America. though I agree that we should not be trying to put dangerous persons in other countries. There is no easy answer to the conflict that is why it is still an issue.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed The interview and would like to comment that the judge was very evasive when asked certain questions. But overall I agree with him. we should look at the Constitution in context with today and should use the sometimes broad language of the Constitution in context with today. The main problem is how can we trust the judges doing the judging on what the constitution means. When they have life terms and cannot be kicked out of office because of poor choices. I think I am going off on a bigger discussion so I will stop. I agree judges should base the constitution off modern times.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought the lens in which Dj viewed Obama’s decision was very interesting and just. However I disagree with him in putting faith in the judges. I think it is necessary and vital that we trust them and our federal government. Although it is a lot of power and responsibility, they are supposed to be the best people for the job and I think would should respect their position and give them due faith. Dj mentioned a breach of separation of powers, but I think this is going on beyond the Supreme Court. The president constantly interferes in the legislative process, is that a breach as well? I think our government has evolved from the days of the Framers, and whether in a good way or bad is up to debate.
ReplyDeleteBreyers Interview: I do not agree with Breyer at all in his interview. I do not believe that the Supreme Court should invoke Judicial activism and flexibly interpret the Constitution. Breyer believes that is is the Court's job to follow the values of the Constitution but apply those values to our "changing world" with little regard to what they actually meant back when they were written. I also did not agree with Breyer's view on the 2nd amendment. Although we have new technology and new weapons the Framers clearly stated "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," so how can Breyer read that and believe that that is not the meaning the Framers were intending to convey. Breyer says that judges need to look at the values not the words, but the words are the concrete evidence of what the framers were trying to say. I also agree completely with Chief Justice Roberts' over Breyer. The State of the Union addresses are used to show the US what the government is doing and to show the unity between the three branches. By criticizing the Supreme Court the President shows that there is not a unity in our government. I agree with Breyer that it is a persons job to criticize opinions and think different things but I do not believe the President to show his opinions on National TV.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Aryan that no one wants Guantanamo Bay detainees to be held on American soil. Just imagine there being dangerous terrorists and criminals in a high security jail in downtown San Diego. As "high security" as it may be, its still a little frightening to know that such dangerous people are in such close proximity to our homes.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Sean's I have to say I agree and disagree. I think everyone deserves a trail but what if Justice is truly blind and the guilty get of free. We would be releasing potential killer into the world and do we even want to risk that possibility. However we could have many innocent men in the person that deserve to have their own lives to live.
ReplyDeleteAlso I agree the second amendment does give us the right to bear arms but does it make any since in modern times to do so. I see the potential risk in giving guns to every American. I could be a good thing or potentially cause more peoples deaths due to violence and a lack of gun control. Then too the questioned must be asked what guns should not be allowed sense the constitution doesn't restrict the type of gun or how many. People might say "use common sense no automatics" but wouldn't it make sense for no guns at all in modern times. Those are some general thoughts on what Sean is saying.
I am immediately reminded to the case Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld from the "Nine" after reading this article. Not only is it about the same issue of Guantanamo Bay, it also brings up the Judicial Branch attempting to check the executive branch's power. Even though the court supported the president and overturned the ruling against him, the judicial branch at some point attempted to end a part of the executive's power. According to this recent article, both Obama and Bush have been fighting the court's blows to keep their power over the US detention policy. I agree more with Obama's plan to close Guantanamo Bay. Even though the supreme court says it is constitutional to keep the "terrorists" in this prison, I believe that it is unjust and immoral and that we should let these people go or at least have a proper trial. I additionally agree with the law passed by the House to keep these prisoners out of the US. Our prison's currently are overpopulated and spent too much on. Bringing in more high profile prisoners who would simply take up space and cause anxiety is not the answer. These prisoners should be returned to their home countries and tried. The Supreme Court should shut down Guantanamo Bay and pressure the executive branch to return all its prisoners.
ReplyDeleteI agree more with Breyer's assertions that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution because it is how the framers wrote it and meant it to be interpreted. They used general language that was purposely open ended to accommodate future events unknown to them and meant us to be guided by important values like liberty and freedom rather than specific wording. This philosophy that Breyer has is commonly known as judicial activism and belongs to most liberal judges. Wallace's ideas and opinions are more of the conservative policy of judicial restraint. I don't agree with Breyer's interpretation of the second amendment. No matter the history of the article or how forced Madison's hand was, the people were given a right and the government has no power to take that away. I agree more with Robert's. The act of jeering at a Supreme Court's ruling was juvenile and unnecessary. The branches of government should respect each other's decision and try to use their checks on others if they don't like certain policies rather than making an immature spectacle.
I agree with Amanda in that also the public aspect of Obama's jeering was bad. it was wrong of Obama and his party being the more public figures to demean another branch because it caused the public to see disunity in their government therefore further distrusting the system.
ReplyDeleteOne similarity to “The Nine” that I noticed is the “fighting” between the branches of government. In “The Nine”, the Executive is negotiating with the Legislative about their Judicial appointment, and in this story, the Judicial is reversing the policy of the Legislative while the Executive tries to keep as much power as possible. The branches of government in the two articles have very interconnected relationships and conflicts, as is probably best.
ReplyDeleteI would say that I would support the detainee’s rights to a fair trial and other rights that are in question in the various situations. Therefore, I would lean towards Obama’s side of closing the facility.
I think it should depend on the detainee whether they are allowed to go to the United States. Some of them may be found completely not guilty, while others may have very convincing evidence of potential terrorism that we do not want in our country. It makes sense that we wouldn’t want some of them in our country, but if they do not wish to leave our country, in an ideal world, we would honor those wishes to the best of our abilities. I think the Supreme Court should close the facility at Guantanamo Bay and bring as many of the detainees to maximum security prisons in the United States as is realistically possible.
I agree with Breyer’s assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution. This is more like the judicial activism that we discussed in class. I probably agree with Breyer’s point of view because his argument seemed more convincing in the video and I have, frankly, little to no background knowledge on the subject. He definitely seemed to know what he was talking about and the idea of putting the Constitution in the context of today really makes sense to me.
I liked Breyer’s explanation of the Second Amendment because I had always heard the words “right to keep and bear arms” but I thought he really brought in an interesting perspective to remind us of the clause that leads to that one that talked about the good of a national militia. This new perspective on the interpretation of the Constitution was interesting to me on an educational level, but I don’t feel quite educated enough to take a stand on the cases described in the video.
In the question of Obama's State of the Union comment, I did seem to disagree with Breyer. He had good points and I respected his opinion, certainly, but it was sad to see the justices all sit there while the rest of the government stood up to clap for the President talking about how their decision was wrong. I agreed with Roberts that that did not seem right.
In response to Anna Coumes...
ReplyDeleteI originally had said that the facility in Cuba should be closed. I now have changed my mind after hearing your sound reasoning. The detainees were put there for a reason. We can't forget that; we must have some degree of faith in our government. Although it may have been a joke, I actually really like your middle of Alaska idea. That way, as I mentioned, the detainees that don't want to go to their home countries don't have to, and we can not worry about them being anywhere near us or any large population of Americans. Alaska actually sounds like a pretty nice idea.
In addition, I would like to further agree with what you said about the State of the Union quote. You seemed even more convinced than I was, though we reached the same conclusion. I agree with you that the government should really try to get along more than they do. Teamwork is usually the answer to a lot of problems. However, if they really are too stubborn to get along, the least they could do is pretend to be courteous and mature to one another, especially in a situation as public and televised and important as the State of the Union is widely believed to be.
I agree with Amanda's comment that the least the United States should do is demonstrate some moral respect to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Sure, they have committed horrible crimes that have affected thousands of individuals, yet as the Constitution states, everyone has the right to freedom. I agree with Amanda that we should do onto others as we shall like others to do onto us. I really find no reason to be cruel and inhumane towards criminals in the whole interrogating process.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I disagree with the idea that the U.S. could relocate detainees in a desert of Mexico because this country already has enough problems to deal with more criminals in their land. Besides, with so many drug traffickers ruling the streets it could be likely that these people would find a way to contact the prisoners and find a way to free a few of them or possibly plan another threatening event. I stand with my suggestion that the prisoners should be placed in our country but distributed to prevent contact with each other.
Some similarities I saw between the reading and "The Nine" was when it was talking about how the justices don't always have to follow the opinions of the president who appointed them because a lot of the justices in the article were going against what George Bush wanted to do with Guantanamo Bay.
ReplyDeleteI don't think they should shut down Guantanamo Bay because a lot of countries probably won't want to take some of the terrorists into their jail so we may end up with more in our jails and if they escape they would probably attack America and a lot of people would die. I think that some of the detainees should get fair trials because they might have information that could help us, and maybe some of them are innocent but were never able to prove themselves innocent. However, some of the really bad terrorists that killed a lot of people definitely deserve to stay in Guantanamo Bay and don't deserve a fair trial.
I agree with Breyer in that we should be guided by the Constitution and not follow it word for word because are country is very different from when the Framers created the Constitution and our world is advancing so quickly that it will just hold us back if we don't change it every once in a while. It should be used as just an outline to how our country should be run.
I think that people should have the right to bear arms as a way to protect themselves. The only problems I can see happening from it is like a killer being able to get a gun, but I feel like there are going to be a lot of ways to get guns whether it's in the constitution or not, so people should be allowed to keep them at their homes.
I did not agree with Obama's State of the Union address because I feel like it's weird that the rest of the government stands up and applauses when the justices just have to sit there emotionless.
I agree with Natalie in that if we followed the Constituion the way it was written back in the day then everyone would be walking around with grenades and bombs and that would make for a very unsafe country and we would not advance at all in society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Cassie said in that all three branches of government need to be present at the state of the union. I believe that shows a strong face to the American public. However, I think it is unjust that the justices must remain silent. Yes, that is their job, and so to respect that job, Obama must also take precautions. A big idea of the three separate branches is that they should be able to cooperate, and while some discussion and disagreement is good, I feel that Obama's comments at the state of the union were too strong.
ReplyDeleteOne connection that I noticed between this story and The Nine is that the government braches (in this case the Judiciary and the Executive) continue to disagree with each other in political decisions. This reminds me of The Nine because it brings up the question of how the Judiciary Branch wants to check the Executive Branch, and the Executive Branch wants to expand its power increasingly. The Executive Branch controls who gets to be picked onto the Court, but the Court has the final say in what the Executive Branch can decide on. This situation relates to how the Supreme Court is limiting the Executive Branch by saying that detainees cannot be relocated back to U.S. Soil.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Obama's choice to close down Guantanamo Bay. First, it is a threat to our national security to have them in our country. I think that it would just cause more problems and threats to security. Keeping the criminals in Guantanamo is the safest way to keep the criminals out of people's way. I agree with Bush's policy about the prison. Criminals need to be kept in Cuba.
I completely agree with the idea that the House is passing a law that would not allow detainees from Guantanamo to the U.S. I think that the law should be passed, and they should fight to have it be successfully admitted. Dangerous criminals and former terrorists should not be allowed into America, even if they are moved to maximum-security prisons. It would just be a chain reaction for more problems.
I completely agree with Breyer's assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution can relate his ideas to the concept of judicial activism. I think that his idea of
"apply the laws to a world that is ever-changing" makes complete sense to me. It seems like we should adjust the laws that are written in the Constitution as they are related to the changing world. I think that Breyer has a good idea of how important the values of the past are, and he is good at connecting the modern society of today with the past history.
I disagree with Breyer’s explanation of the 2nd Amendment. I agree with the Supreme Court that you should have "the right to bare arms" Everyone should have the right to be able to protect them selves. If they were to rule to say that guns can be restricted then they are saying they can change anything that has been written in the Constitution. However, I think that there should be some slight amendments to tighten the requirements to own a gun to keep arms out of the hands of dangerous people.
In response to Obama's State of the Union comment, I disagreed with Breyer's views. He made a valid point, but I think that it was disrespectful and just sad to see the whole government clap at the justice's decision that is viewed as wrong by the President. Robert's opinion seemed to make the most sense to me. It did not seem just and right. I agree that it was "troubling".
I agree with Amanda's interpretations about Breyer's comment. I liked the wording she used when she said "circumstances are always changing". Of course, we should be going by the values outlined in the Constitution, but with the modern society of the world, we need to update some of the laws as they see fit.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Stephanie's comments about the Constitution because I think that it is not right to follow the Constitution strict because there are many instances and circumstances that can change. I don't think anything would ever progress if judges continued to follow the exact words of the document.
I think that Guantanamo detainees shouldn't be held there without a fair trial and an equally fair conviction. If anyone threw me in jail without a proven reason I would demand a fair trial, and I think that everyone else would ass well. I don't think that it is fair to hold people like this and I don't think, weather you are a strict constructionist or an activist, that the constitution would allow this unfair holding.
ReplyDeleteI think that Breyer is right, and that judges should interpret the laws and then apply them to modern day. The world is constantly changing, constantly growing, and there is really no way to live by the rules that were made hundreds of years ago and expect them to hold and to run society. I think that people should have the right to bear arms to a certain extent. I think that, as tedious as it may sound, that people should have background checks before they purchase a gun; for their safety and of those around them.
I don't think that it's right that the entire government can stand and applaud the president, while the justices have to sit there like statues.
One similarity i noticed between this article and "The Nine" article was that in both instances the president had a lot of things to take into consideration before taking a stand on an issue such as if he choose to close Guantanamo Bay would he have the political backing to get it done to begin with.
ReplyDeleteI fall more in line with Bush's policy because although the convicted at the prison are people, they are not the type of people anyone would want to be set free besides other terrorist groups. If they are set free, im sure they will have even more reason to want to do harm to the U.S.
I agree with that law congress passed keeping the prisoners in a military prison because im sure no one wants terrorists to be housed on U.S. soil. Im my opinion, the detainees in G. Bay should have as little rights as possible because they would be right back to plotting attacks againt the U.S. or an allied nation. they are threats to the whole U.S. and many other nations.
I agree with justice Breyer because like he stated,the Framers never knew airplanes would be part of interstate commerce or that the internet would become a factor in freedom of speech. so i do agree that he sound make decisions based on the values outlined within the Constitution. I believe that he has a "loose construtionalist" ideology.
I agree with Justice Breyer's interpretation of the Second Admendment because guns are not responsible for inner-city violence, the people are. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
I agree with Breyer's point of view on Obama's statements because he seems more professional about the incident. He doesn't get worked up about the politics surrounding the government, he just makes sure he does his job properly.
The connections between this story and the readings from "the Nine" is that these cases from Guantanamo Bay put to question as to whether the Judicial Branch will inhibit the Executive's ability over the Guantanamo Bay situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with President Obama in closing Guantanamo Bay because this prison illustrates the troubling times of the Bush Administration, and I believe that for the nation to move forward as a country, we need to close the books on Guantanamo. In terms of trying these detainees in civilian court, their is nothing Congress can do because in my opinion, if a detainee is charged in the United States, they are automatically given the right to a trial in a civilian court in front of a jury of its peers, and having a military trial on a military base does not satisfy the right to a trial by jury. If people are concerned about security, then Congress should work to bolster security in our prisons and in our courtrooms.
In light of the previous opinion, I do not support the Houses' bill which prevents the Executive Branch from transferring detainees to the United States from Cuba. I think the Supreme Court should strike down this bill as it is unconstitutional due to the bill violating the detainees' right to a trial by jury.
In terms of the assertions made by Justice Breyer and Chris Wallace, my stance is in the middle between them. Although I believe that a judge should uphold the principles in the Constitution, there are some cases where it would be unclear where the Framers should stand. However, I don't believe in the "flexible approach whenever we feel like it", this is judicial activism. I do believe that judges should uphold the Constitution, but the interpretation of the Constitution varies on a case-by-case basis.
I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of a person to bear arms. Therefore, I would agree with the Supreme Court upholding a person's right to own a gun.
In terms of Breyer's take on Obama's comments on Citizens United, I agree with the position that the President has the right to say what he wants even in the presence of the people he is saying it to. Yes, what the President did was incredibly rude and was completely inappropriate, but he does have the right to say what he said as he has the right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Response to Amanda Reilly:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement on Guantanamo Bay. Yes, is isn't ideal for detainees to be transferred to the U.S., but they have the right to a fair trial like everyone else and shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty as such. In terms of the SOTU, I agree that Obama was within his right to make that statement, but he definitely could have worded it a little differently in order for it to be less blunt and not seem like he is trashing the Supreme Court for doing its job.
I agree with amanda's interpretation on breyer"s comment about making laws for an ever changing society. although certain things are never directly mentioned in the constitution, it is safe to say that society would not function properly if loose constuctionalist point of views were not inserted in order to make certain decisions.
ReplyDeleteA connection a see between this article and "The Nine" is different branches are vying for greater power, in this case the judicial and executive. In this case the judicial branch is attempting to take away the executive branch's power to detain and imprison people.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of if Guantanamo Bay should remain open, it doesn't make any difference to me. I feel that if there is compelling evidence to believe they where planning on or in the act of causing harm to America, then they should remain locked up, and the location does not make that much of a difference as long as they are secure. And again I agree with the laws passed by the House if and only if there is incontrovertible evidence that they are truly terrorists; however, it would be better if they were not on U.S. soil. I also feel the Supreme Court should hear or at least look at cases where the evidence may be questionable or insufficient.
I fall somewhere between their opinions. I feel in certain circumstances the Constitution should be followed directly and in other it should be followed loosely. I disagree in part with the removal of handgun bans, because in certain cities shootings had become all too common and also agree, because it is implicitly stated in the Constitution that citizens have the right to bear arms. I agree with Roberts that it was "troubling" because the Supreme Court ruled and the president and congress should respect that, and if they must say something they should do it not while the justices are present and having to remain "expressionless."
I disagree with Joey's comment about Guantanamo. I feel that while they are being detained by the U.S. they do not in anyway obtain any of the rights of U.S. citizens as he suggests. Also I would like to point out that non of the current known detainees in Guantanamo are U.S. citizens and therefore I feel that they should be treated as a prisoner of war and given a military trial.
ReplyDeleteI think the the prisoners shoud remain where they are and not come to a prison here. Although we don't know much about the circumstances of anything that is going on or the finer details, the prisoneres movement will create an uproar with citizens all throughout the nation. Obama will be constantly be checked by the judicial branch and will have to think about the opinions of MANY people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Breyer. The issues that are at hand in today's world is CERTAINLY not the same as they were when the constitution was being written. I think that trying to uphold a strict construction approach to the constitution only prolongs the life of a case that could be resolved quicker if it was taken at more of a value-based outlook. I also agree of his interpretation of the second amendment. Gun control is important to the citizens of America, but it is a right given to us to protect ourselves. Responsibilty plays they key role when people try to take advantages of using a gun. We should be able to keep and bear arms and be responsible citizens of America.
I agree with what Ana had to say, that the branches of government may not have the same opinions but they should all remember that they are working together for a common cause. They are protecting us and at the same time giving us freedom. Obama should realize that the judicial branch will always have the power to keep a check and try to also be balanced with the Legislative branch. They all need to work together and pull each other up and grow from one another.
ReplyDeletethe connection between the article and the nine is that there is a power struggle between the executive and judicial branches. the judicial branch is trying to inhibit the power of the executive branch to detain those thought to be terrorists.
ReplyDeletei support bush's plan to imprison high threat individuals that are thought to be in league and planning to attack american soil and cause harm to our citizens. i think that if it means keeping us citizens safe then by all means detain those who could cause harm to us.
i think that guantanomo bay should not be closed, becuase the prisoners cannot just go free and i dont think it would be smart to detain them in the states, no matter how high security the place is. because if by some chance they got free they have massive amount of knowledge on bomb making and such and could cause a lot of harm, especially because they would already be on american soil.
i agree more with interpretting the constitution in a more looser fashion, not interpretting it litterally, just like the way people interpret the bible. you need to look at the underlying meanings and try to see what the framers really meant and envisioned for this country. there are certain things in the constitutuion that are not referred to directly but should be implied. for example the privacy thing its not specifically mentioned in the constitution but im pretty sure when the framers wrote they wanted our privacy to be upheld, and they therefore implied the right to privacy. however i dont think they specifically mentioned it because they dont want people to think that the government cant violate your privacy, because the government should be able to if its a matter of national security.
i agree with katrina about guantanamo bay. moving the prisoners and closing guantanamo bay would cause turmoil amongst the u.s. citizens and would look bad on the obama ministration which is something we dont need right now.
ReplyDeletealso i dissagree with joey about trying the detainees. they do not get the right to trial by jury because those are exclusive to united state citiznes, and they are not citizens.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why Obama hasn’t been able to shut down Guantanamo Bay is because the Judicial Branch has not been in agreement with his views as he had hoped they would be. This is one similarity between “The Nine” readings and the article. Clinton and Bush chose nominees that they believed would rule in favor of their legislation.
ReplyDeleteI fall more in line with President Bush’s policy that the prison should remain open. The hundred and seventy plus detainees should be tried under military courts since they were taken as prisoners of war by the military.
I agree with the House’s law preventing
detainees from being transferred to the United States prisons. If transferred to U.S. prisons, the detainees would be given the opportunity to spread their radical views against our country to disgruntled U.S. prisoners and possibly create an even larger terrorist backing. The Supreme Court should stay out of the detainee trials and let the military courts be the primary litigators.
I believe that our founders created the constitution as a guide for interpreting and enacting law. I agree with Breyer’s assertion because certain situations require judges to loosely interpret the constitution because many modern circumstances are not mentioned or included in the document. Breyer’s belief is generally a liberal viewpoint, in favor of judicial activism and a loose interpretation of the constitution.
No, I don’t agree with Breyer’s belief regarding the second amendment. The people of the United States have the right to bear arms. The problem lies in enforcing the ways in which handguns are registered and issued.
I thought it was troubling that President Obama threw his Supreme Court Justices under the bus for overturning the Citizens United decision. It was highly inappropriate that half of the room stood up and jeered at the Justices for their decision while the Justices professionally sat through the State of the Union Address.
The largest connection I see is that the judicial branch definitely has substantial power over the executive branch, in this case regarding detainees and civil liberty. However, I agree with President Bush's stance towards the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I believe that because the prison is a military institution and is run that way, the prisoners are under tighter security and have no chance to escape or commit other crimes while in prison. If these prisoners were divided among state prisons, they would be watched over by state guards instead of trained Military members, and therefore would have a better chance of escape. I also believe that the Supreme Court should free up pending cases about Guantanamo Bay before any legislation or executive action becomes necessary just to clear up the conflict.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of justice Breyer's assertions of the supreme court's role, but not all of them. Yes the framers could not envision how life could be like today, but at the same time these were some of the greatest minds our country has ever produced. They knew exactly what they were doing by leaving some areas broad and up to interpretation, and some areas very concise and easy to understand. The reason our constitution is so successful is that it is not hundreds of pages long and consisting of rules that overlap. I believe the framers made the constitution so compact is that they wanted it to be easy to be ruled upon by a court of law. But, I believe they thought it would be easier to amend the constitution, and for this they left out topics like privacy. Our issue today is that in such a fast moving country and political structure, no one is willing to take the time to amend the constitution, as many issues are debated an set aside in a short period of time.
I agree with Cristina’s point that transporting prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to other countries, let alone the United States would be a huge risk for the safety and security of the region that they are ultimately transported to. The detainees at Guantanamo Bay are highly dangerous terrorists and would do anything to harm our country. In multiple cases, the detainees that have been set free from Guantanamo Bay went back to their home countries and re-joined their terrorist groups. So, keeping them secure at Guantanamo Bay is the best option.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Amanda about President Obama's actions at the state of the union. Although I think it is good that a president is willing to speak his mind, sadly a lot of politics is knowing when to suck up to people and knowing when to take a stand by yourself. I believe that President Obama took the wrong approach in this instance.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article there were several things that reminded me of the article "The nine" is that the branches of government are once again arguing the matter and have differing opinions. Th executive branch seems like it always wants all of the power, But i feel like the president is stopped from having too much power.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the obama by stating that the the prison facility should be shut down , the people locked in there are there for a reason and we do not want these prisoners that hate america on american soil. America has other problems and issues to concentrate on and does not need the extra problems that these" terrorists" would cause. Yes, it could be that not all of them are guilty but I think that they are there for a reason and I think it would pose a threat to our country and this way we can eliminate any future problems that america might have with terrorists. I think that this camp also serves to show that america does have terrorism under control and that they know how to handle it. So I completely agree with President Bush's policy to keep them in cuba. releasing the detainees would just cause further problems which is what the law intended to avoid in the first place. Even thought the legislative branch disagrees with this I think that it is the best thing to do.
I agree with the law being passed by the house that would not allow the prisoners to be released on U.S soil and think that it should stay that way.
In the video, Breyer mentions that the constitution must be read and used differently then exactly how it was written .This is true because when it was written we didn't have technology which means that certain things in the constitution should be applied differently because of an ever changing america. For example with gun control, when the constitution was written violence in the U.S was not a problem but now in this modern society people take advantage and abuse rights which is why they must be modified.
I agree with what christina said that " I believe that the Guantanamo Bay prison should remain open. There is just too much of a risk. I absolutely believe that all detainees have the right to defend themselves in a trial. But, the guilty shouldn’t be locked away anywhere else BUT Guantanamo Bay. It is unfair to put other countries and our own states at risk by holding these violent, sick prisoners. The prison has been holding over 170 prisoners securely for many years now, I just don’t see any reason to change the system" because It is really unfair that the U.S should have to deal with these people and i also agree with natalie that the people should not be placed anywhere near california . what Nate said was also interesting because i also believe that the constitution should be interpreted in a loosely fashion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Natalie and Annie in the fact that judges need to be able to read the constitution and then read between the lines to form new laws that pertain to our society today and will help the country move forward. The judges need to do this because if they didn't we would never be able to progress as a nation, and everyone would be stuck in the past doing what the framers wrote word for word.
ReplyDeleteBetween this story and the readings that we did in class I notice that the president has to put a lot of thought into the decisions that he makes similar to how Clinton and Bush did when appointing judges. They have to consider a lot of other people’s opinions especially the opinions of the judges.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Obamas decision to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo bay. I think that is should stay open because Cuba is the perfect, isolated place to keep them. The idea of moving then to high security prisons is the states is one to consider but prisons here are crowded and in my opinion the general American public would feel safer with prisoners of war geographically isolated from the rest of the United States. For this reason I don’t agree with the law being passed to move the detainees to the United States. I think the Supreme Court should keep them there but not to put anymore detainees there so eventually, Guantanamo Bay will be closed.
I agree more with Wallace that we should go with the exact wording of the Constitution on this issue. The bill of rights clearly says that people should have the right to bare arms and there is no way to get around that. This connects to our class discussion in that Wallace is a strict constructionist while Breyer is a loose constructionist.
I agree more with the Supreme Courts interpretations that led to hand gun bans being overturned in recent years because it is clear that that is what the framers of the constitution intended when they wrote the constitution.
I agree with Breyer’s explanation of the situation because the American people should be able to express them self-selves and there opinions by clapping. And I also belief that it was within Obama’s rights to announce the news in the way he did.
I also agree with Britta and Kaitlyn in that America should continue to use Guantanamo Bay, as a detention facility but that there should be guidelines as well. Its clear that some of the treatment at the facility is unfair and unethical, but considering the people involved and why they are being held, it seem reasonable to have a secure place to hold them. I agree that they deserve the chance to speak for themselves, however, but I don’t like the idea of American tax dollars paying for there representation in American courts when they are going to sue America.
ReplyDeleteI would have to completely disagree with Dobi the House Elf. "I agree more with Obama's plan to close Guantanamo Bay. Even though the supreme court says it is constitutional to keep the "terrorists" in this prison, I believe that it is unjust and immoral and that we should let these people go or at least have a proper trial." The base should not be closed and those that are imprisoned in there should continue to be kept there. If released, they may 'terrorize' the United States and cause fear and mayham.
ReplyDeleteI think that the thing that struck me as the most similar was how important the ideologies of the justices are. With Kagan’s absence the court is tied in their views, which brings them right back to the beginning. It was also similar in the Judicial Branch attempting to limit the power of the Executive Branch in the courts actually bringing the cases to trial to ensure that the decision made about whether or not Guantanamo detainees are transferred to the U.S for detention or trial doesn’t lie solely with the President.
ReplyDeleteBased on what I have read I would say that I fall more in line with President Bush’s policy that Guantanamo bay should remain open. If they are just going to transfer the detainees to different high-security prisons, why not just keep Guantanamo Bay open?
I do agree with the law passed by the House because what is the point of transferring them to the United States when they are already being held in a facility. I think that the Supreme Court should allow the detainees to be brought to trial but if they are found guilty I think Guantanamo Bay should remain open the they should be kept there.
I agree with Breyer’s views that we should be guided by the values outlined in the Constitution. I think that he makes a good argument when he states that with change there has to be a change in how the values are interpreted. I liked his statement that the Framers didn’t know that interstate commerce would one day include airplanes. Breyer’s view is that of a loose constructionist, he interprets the Constitution rather than going by its exact wording.
I agree Breyer’s explanation of the 2nd Amendment because he did a pretty good job of explaining why it was added and explaining that it is up to interpretation of exactly what measures we can take to protect ourselves with his example of machine guns.
I found myself agreeing with Chief Justice Roberts’ statement that it was “troubling” because I think that it was wrong of President Obama to call them out like that in front of everyone, with them having to just sit through it, all because of them doing their job.
I agree with Christina in that we should leave Guantanamo Bay open because why bring the terrorists to the United States when they are already being detained at Guantanamo Bay? Bringing them to the U.S. would just be more trouble than it is worth and what is the point of it? It has been used as a prison for prisoners of war for years and should continue to serve that purpose. The detainees should be allowed a trial because even though they are not U.S. citizens, it is still our responsibility to give them a chance to defend themselves.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that the executive branch really has no say in what happens to the detainees. It’s up to the federal courts and even then not even the Supreme Court because they will be tied 4 – 4. Like in “The Nine” the Supreme Court has the power to override a presidential decision.
ReplyDeleteI definitely don’t think that the prison should be closed. At least it should not be closed until we have a proper place to relocate the prisoners. Closing it without knowing what to do with them is stupid because we are lift with 174 people who have no place to go. Guantanamo Bay should remain open until the “War on Terrorism” is no longer a key part of our lives and political ideologies.
I do not agree with this law. All of the detainees should have the right to seek a hearing or trial. If there is any way to reduce the population of Guantanamo Bay then we should take every action (and precaution) to do so. Until all of the detainees can be either let go or transferred, the Supreme Court should decide to keep the prison open.
I definitely think that we should use the US Constitution as a guideline rather than go word for word on what it says. There is no way that the framers could have covered every right or thought or idea that the government and citizens should have. We can easily infer what is right and wrong based on what is already written. Plus, society has changed dramatically over the last 200 years. Obviously, parts of the Constitution are going to be slightly out dated and just as long as the basic rights of citizens are protected by laws then loose interpretation of the Constitution should be alright.
I agree with Breyer’s explanation of the 2nd amendment. I think that people should have the right to bear arms and that the Supreme Court should not have banned hand guns. The Constitution clearly states that the citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. There is no room for flux there. For the Court to overturn that constitutional right with a ban on guns is wrong.
I find myself agreeing more with Justice Breyer’s explanation. People have different view and they will always have different view on everything. We are a split nation and there will never be one decision that will please everyone. So while the congress and executive branch differed on the judicial branch’s view, they had a right to and their ability to express those opposing ideals openly and freely without persecution is their first amendment right.
Guantanamo brings up issues that are unaddressed in the Constitution and issues that are unique to the 21st Century. When the framers were writing the Constitution, the typical punishment for a captured solider might have been death, or holding until the hostilities between the two nations had ceased. In this War on Terrorism, we are fighting a enemy who is not officially backed by any one country willing to take responsibility for the captured fighters. We are also in a age were simply killing the suspected terrorist without a fair trial would against our morals as a nation. The Supreme Court is then left with a decision on whether to allow a trial to the suspected terrorist or to simply place them in a judicial limbo as would be done to a captured solider in any conventional conflict. The problem with placing these suspects in a limbo would be that this conflict may not end in the prisoners lifetime, and in some cases allowing potentially innocent prisoners life sentences. I believe that the most effective way to solve the issue of Guantanamo is to try the suspected terrorist in a International Court for Crimes Against Humanity, and a convicted terrorist would be sentence to death. This way we are able to show that this is not only the United States war but a international war on terrorism. I understand that allowing a trial for these suspects might allow some guilty to be freed, but as a nation who upholds the ideals of the liberty, democracy, and equal rights for not only it's citizens but for all of mankind, it would be hypocritical and against our beliefs as a nation not to allow a trial to the 170 prisoners in Guantanamo bay.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Breyers views about not strictly following the wording of the Constitution. Although the Constitution may be one of the greatest documents ever written, it is not perfect. I don't believe that when the Framers were drafting the Constitution that 200 years later there would be laws decided based on the EXACT wording in the document. The Framers created a Constitution based around their beliefs of what a Country should be built on. If the Framers were able to write a new Constitution based on todays situations and conflicts I would guarantee there would be significant changes.
Guantanamo brings up issues that are unaddressed in the Constitution and issues that are unique to the 21st Century. When the framers were writing the Constitution, the typical punishment for a captured solider might have been death, or holding until the hostilities between the two nations had ceased. In this War on Terrorism, we are fighting a enemy who is not officially backed by any one country willing to take responsibility for the captured fighters. We are also in a age were simply killing the suspected terrorist without a fair trial would against our morals as a nation. The Supreme Court is then left with a decision on whether to allow a trial to the suspected terrorist or to simply place them in a judicial limbo as would be done to a captured solider in any conventional conflict. The problem with placing these suspects in a limbo would be that this conflict may not end in the prisoners lifetime, and in some cases allowing potentially innocent prisoners life sentences. I believe that the most effective way to solve the issue of Guantanamo is to try the suspected terrorist in a International Court for Crimes Against Humanity, and a convicted terrorist would be sentence to death. This way we are able to show that this is not only the United States war but a international war on terrorism. I understand that allowing a trial for these suspects might allow some guilty to be freed, but as a nation who upholds the ideals of the liberty, democracy, and equal rights for not only it's citizens but for all of mankind, it would be hypocritical and against our beliefs as a nation not to allow a trial to the 170 prisoners in Guantanamo bay.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Breyers views about not strictly following the wording of the Constitution. Although the Constitution may be one of the greatest documents ever written, it is not perfect. I don't believe that when the Framers were drafting the Constitution that 200 years later there would be laws decided based on the EXACT wording in the document. The Framers created a Constitution based around their beliefs of what a Country should be built on. If the Framers were able to write a new Constitution based on todays situations and conflicts I would guarantee there would be significant changes.
ReplyDeleteI like how gabby said it when she was talking about Guantanamo Bay... We cannot expect other countries to willingly become responsible for our prisoners of war. They are dangerous and should be kept in that facility until further notice. Shutting it down solves nothing.
ReplyDeleteAs a conection between the two it does seem that the presidents both obama and clinton both put a whole lot of thought and really think about the effect and how what they do will be looked at before they make any act.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the prison should remain open and the detainees should remain captive. but on a more humane side i do think that all of the detainees should get some sort of trial or investigation that does atleast proves that they did have intent or have done something in the first place that would lead to themending up there
I personally beleie that it should stay open. but if it is to be closed then i beleive that they should be transfered to a maximum security prison not in any place particularly close to anything significant. like if it was to a prison in alaska or somewhere like that i think that that would be the best option
response to wolfman
ReplyDeleteyour right that it is a problem that is unaddressed by the constitution and is fully up to the current leaders of our country do need to figure out what to do about this. and i do think that all the detainees should get a fair trial and i have a feeling that for the most part all of them will be convicted again and sent back to the prison, i do not think though that it should be closed down
I think this article is connected to "The Nine" article that we read in class because it shows that Supreme Courts officals play a major role in infleuncing the Presidents decision making. So, like Bush and Clinton, the selection of a nominee should be very through and accurate to insure that the correct judge is found and rulings are fair.
ReplyDeleteI think those being held at Guantanomo Bay should stay there, and therefore disagree with President Obama's decision. I believe that they are in a secluded area for a reason, and should not be moved to any other state for safety reasons. I also agree that all detainees should have the right to a fair trial, even though some are not getting the chance to. I think the best solution would be to let the prision remain where it currently is and keep the detainees there as well.
I think I tend to lean more towards Justice Breyer with the issue of the Constitution because he made a good point saying that the Framers did not know what the future entailed, and didn't specifically mention all of our new technological advances. I think that the Constitution should be interpreted a little loosely to make better rulings on things that are not in the Constitution. As for the 2nd Amendment, I think this is a tougher decision. I wouldn't feel safe knowing that people could have machine guns or weapons, but I do think the American people need some kind of self protection. Also, I think that President Obama wasn't purposely trying to do anything wrong, so I agree with Breyer that Obama was just representing the judicial branch.
I disagree Mike's negative view on the Framers drafting of the 2nd amendment. I think the Framers were very ambiguous in the drafting of the 2nd amendment . I also think they did this on purpose, the Framers had no idea what this new country would become, I believe that the Framers created the second amendment as a way keep the entire Federal Government in check. The right to bear arms and form militias is perhaps the most powerful check of power in the entire constitution, if at any point the Federal government became to powerful there would always be a base of rebellion, and a successful revolution requires strong groups and a lot of ammo. The Framers knew this from first hand experience and wanted to ensure that the government they would create would have a self destruct button. I also believe that the Framers left the responsibility to us to determine to what the second amendment should entitle. In my own opinion I think the a citizen should have the right to own a gun, but only under extensive background checks. I also disagree with the owning of anything more powerful then a hunting rifle. Although I think we as a nation would be better off with a ban on all firearms, I think it is a necessary part of the constitution and if anything the ultimate fail safe of the people. I believe the day we should outlaw guns is the day we have absolute faith that our system of government will not turn against the people, for me I believe that day has come a long time ago, but there will always be others who disagree and they could easily be right.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Layla that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and the detainees in Guantanomo Bay should be treated the same way. I also agree that our Constitution should be followed as a guidelines for rulings, not exactly word for word. Although, I do not think Americans should be able to have guns because it creates crime and chaos. But now in 2010, if we were to ban guns, I think it would be bad because most people already own a firearm so it would be pointless.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely related to the article "The Nine" that we read in class this past week. The supreme court has a huge role in influencing the president's decisions. IT must be difficult to be the president if the supreme court makes a decision that he does not agree with because most of the United States support the supreme court and their decisions because they are usually as moral as they can be. But if the president disagrees then he might get some criticism if he makes decisions that are against whatever the supreme court ruled.
ReplyDeleteI agree with President OBama and what he did because I think that many of the people who are being kept at Guantanomo Bay are probably innocent and being treated and tortured for information that they do not have. It is very similar to the internment of the Japanese during World War II when we had no justification and many of the Japanese in America had been living here their entire life and had no ties in Japan.
I do agree with justice Breyer and his opinion on the constitution and the Framers. I do not think that the Framers had any idea of what our country would evolve into and they definitely did not know that we would have the internet or television. I almost think that we should probably add some ammendments to the constitution because right now we have no official right to privacy which I believe that the people deserve.
I agree with Jack in the sense that there are some disadvantages to a constitution being interpreted broadly. A constitution can be interpreted broadly to take rights away from people. For example when the supreme court ruled separate but equal. It was not fair for the African Americans that wanted to attend school from Brown v Board of Education. The supreme court made a loose interpretation of the clause in the constitution that says all those who are citizens have equal rights. But in fact in this case the rights were not equal but they were separated, so the ruling was bad and loose and helped discrimination. I think that this is one of the only flaws of a loose interpretation, but the only other alternative would be to create a bunch more amendments to the constitution which would take a lot of time and effort and probably never happen.
ReplyDelete