"It may be that during wartime emergencies it is in the nature of the presidency to focus on accomplishing political and strategic ends without too much regard for any resulting breaches in the shield which the Constitution gives to civil liberties. Perhaps it may be best that the courts reserve their serious consideration of questions of civil liberties which arise during wartime until after the war is over. At any rate, these are questions worth thinking about not only in wartime but in peacetime as well:
posted on 11/13/2001 9:13:49 AM PST
A rewarding read, although there are no easy answers here for either side of the tribunal debate.
What a thoughtful and diligent Chief Justice we have.
posted on 11/27/2001 5:32:08 PM PST
All members of the Court joined in rejecting the government's argument that the Bill of Rights simply did not apply in wartime. The majority opinion contains a somewhat rhetorical passage for which it is justly famous:
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.
posted on 12/19/2005 6:00:07 PM PST
(A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson