APPLICATION THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PRINCIPLE OF SOCIAL STATE

On June 10, 2019, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case in which the D.C. Circuit held that the United States could continue to detain an individual at Guantánamo Bay until the cessation of the hostilities that justified his initial detention, notwithstanding the extraordinary length of the hostilities to date. The case, Al-Alwi v. Trump, arises from petitioner Moath Hamza Ahmed Al-Alwi's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of his continued detention at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay. The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari was accompanied by a statement by Justice Breyer observing that “it is past time to confront the difficult question” of how long a detention grounded in the U.S. response to the September 11 attacks can be justified.

Download Full-text

New Methods in Due-Process Cases

American Political Science Review ◽

10.2307/1943601 ◽

1918 ◽

Vol 12 (2) ◽

pp. 241-250

Author(s):

Albert M. Kales

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Due Process ◽

United States Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

State Governments ◽

House Of Lords ◽

The Social ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Fundamental Requirement

In addressing the court in due-process cases one should not commence with the usual salutation “May it please the Court.” Instead, one should say “My Lords.” Backed by and charged with the enforcement of the due-process clause of the fifth and fourteenth amendments, the Supreme Court of the United States is the American substitute for the British house of lords. It constitutes the real and only conservative second chamber of the federal government. It is a second conservative chamber for each of the state governments.The time has come when the political scientists of the country should recognize, in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court under the due-process clause, the functioning of a second chamber, organized to defeat the popular will as expressed in legislation when that will appears to endanger what the court may regard as a fundamental requirement of the social structure itself.Like all conservative second chambers, the Supreme Court and the due-process clause are in a hopeless dilemma. If the popular will were frustrated as often as the dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice McReynolds indicate that it should be, the second chamber function of the court would be assailed by the recall of judicial decisions. If the court bowed to the popular will as often as the dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice Holmes indicate that it should, the second chamber function of the court would cease to be exercised.

Download Full-text

Revitalizing The U.S. Compliance Power

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/20456643 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 102 (3) ◽

pp. 551-562 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Steve Charnovitz

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Obligation ◽

International Court ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Law ◽

The U.S

Although “[tjreaties are the law of the land, and a rule of decision in all courts,” the president and the courts may sometimes be powerless to achieve compliance with a U.S. treaty. That was the puzzling outcome of Medellin v. Texas. Even though the Supreme Court declared that the United States has an international obligation to comply with the Avena judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Court invalidated the president’s memorandum directing Texas and other errant states to comply.

Download Full-text

8. The Court and the world

The U.S. Supreme Court: A Very Short Introduction ◽

10.1093/actrade/9780190079819.003.0008 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 92-98

Author(s):

Linda Greenhouse

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

Specific Knowledge ◽

The Public ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The World ◽

Public Imagination ◽

The U.S

When the Framers set the Supreme Court in motion, they had no template for what they were about to create. “The court and the world” demonstrates that other countries were able to use the Supreme Court for inspiration, and many have done so. What they have chosen to take and leave from the Court’s example is instructive. Lifetime tenure is less common outside the United States, with most European courts preferring nine- or ten-year appointments and aiming for unanimity rather than majority. While specific knowledge about the Court is limited, the U.S. Supreme Court still holds a place in the public imagination.

Download Full-text

Living or Dead? Specifics of the Language of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric ◽

10.2478/slgr-2014-0035 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 38 (1) ◽

pp. 123-136

Author(s):

Izabela Kraśnicka

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

Original Text ◽

Second Amendment ◽

Language Interpretation ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

American Legal System ◽

The Right ◽

The U.S

Abstract The original text of the Constitution of the United States of America, written over 200 years ago, constitutes the supreme source of law in the American legal system. The seven articles and twenty seven amendments dictate understanding of fundamental principles of the federation’s functioning and its citizens’ rights. The paper aims to present the evolution of the U.S. Constitution’s language interpretation as provided by its final interpreter - the Supreme Court of the United States. Example of the Second Amendment will be analyzed to present the change in understanding of the language grammar and, as a consequence, the sense of the right to keep and bear arms in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of District of Columbia v Heller (554 U.S. 570 (2008)). It will argue for the accuracy of statement of Charles Evans Hughes, former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court: “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is...”

Download Full-text

U.S. Senatorial Race for Maine

Political Science Undergraduate Review ◽

10.29173/psur213 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 79-89

Author(s):

Giustina Luisa Bombini

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

House Of Representatives ◽

United States Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Current Speaker ◽

The Right ◽

Precarious Situation ◽

The U.S

Over the course of 23 years, United States Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) has been able to successfully walk a unique line of nonpartisanship, never stepping too far to the right, or to the left. However, following her vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court in 2017, and her vote to acquit President Trump of his impeachment charges in early 2020, Susan Collins placed herself in an incredibly precarious situation. Pundits and analysts were convinced that this election would turn into a referendum on Susan Collins (Lyall 2020). Meanwhile, her opponent, the current Speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, Sara Gideon, consistently led in the polls and worked off of the momentum gained from the success of the U.S. House Democrats in the 2018 midterms. And yet, Susan Collins stunned the nation by defeating Gideon. This paper evaluates and analyses what possible causes led to this outcome. Ultimately, Collins’ choice to vote against the confirmation of late-Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement on the Supreme Court convinced Mainers that Susan Collins could still be trusted, and should be given another chance.

Download Full-text

THE CONCEPT AND THE CONTENT OF THE INTERROGATION OF THE SUSPECT IN CUSTODY IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN THE UNITED STATES

Godišnjak Pravnog Fakulteta u Banja Luci ◽

10.7251/god1840011s ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 1 (40) ◽

Author(s):

Miodrag N. Simović ◽

Vladimir M. Simović

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Criminal Procedure ◽

The United States ◽

Federal Courts ◽

The State ◽

Constitutional Rights ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Right ◽

The U.S

The paper analyses some relevant issues related to the treatment oflaw enforcement officers in the United States after a person has been taken intocustody or otherwise deprived of liberty, which requires informing that personof his/her constitutional rights. In the landmark decision Miranda v. Arizona(1966), the Supreme Court of the United States set standards for law enforcementofficers to follow when interrogating suspects held in custody.Suspects who are subject to custodial interrogation must be warned of theirright to remain silent; that any statements they make may be used as evidenceagainst them; that they have a right to an attorney; and if they cannot afford anattorney, the State will assign them one prior to any questioning, if they so wish.According to Miranda, unless those rights are not read, any evidence obtainedduring the interrogation may not be used against the defendant.Ever since Miranda was decided, state and federal courts have struggled witha number of issues with regard to its application, including the suspect’s beingin custody, which entitles the suspect to being readMiranda rights, the suspect’swaiving the right to have an attorney present during questioning. Some decisionsby the U.S. Supreme Court have attempted to answer these difficult questions.

Download Full-text