Good short answer for court cases essay example

Marbury v Madison, is an early precedent that has been used to support judicial review. It demonstrated the responsibility of all arms of government as far as the preservation of constitutional values is concerned. It gave the courts the mandate to rule on the constitutionality of a legislative act. This has discouraged the legislature from voting in bills that are repugnant to the Constitution. This is by indicating that those acts that are repugnant to the constitution are not fit to be laws of the land. This is a great indicator of the superiority of the constitution.
The decision and opinions given in Ex Parte Milligan case protects civilian citizens from being tried by a military tribunal. This is because as held in the case, the military tribunals have no jurisdiction over people who are not in the military. Civilians should instead be granted a criminal trial in a federal civilian court. This is regardless of the crime allegedly committed, for as long they were not in a rebellious state. It also supports a petition for a writ for habeas corpus, which is a court order for the release of a person who has been unjustly imprisoned by the government.
In the Prize Cases, the theory that the president should utilize his war power in implementation of laws that aimed to suppress rebellion was sustained. The Court dealt with the interpretation of powers and mandate that the executive has in dealing with a crisis. The court was charged with the duty to determine the legality of the president’s act in proclaiming a blockade in the southern ports. It was held that such a blockade was only valid if there was war. Therefore, the proclamation of a blockade by the president was an indication that there actually was war. Considering there had been a prior attack to the port, it was held that the president had the power to respond to an act of war, without having to seek further consultation from the legislature.
In US v Curtiss-Wright, it was established that the president as an organ of the federal government must not base his actions on Congress. However, his actions must be in accordance to the Constitution. It was also stated that the president had the discretion to decide whether implementation of a certain statute in relation to war would have beneficial effects. It, therefore, not only led to the establishment of the executive orders on issues of security and foreign affairs, but also some allowed limitations for the sake of national security. It has, therefore, eased conflict between the executive and legislative arms of government in relation to issues concerning national security and foreign affairs.
In the case of Youngstown Sheet and Tube v Sawyer, the issue resonated on separation of powers. It was held that the president did not have the power under the constitution to make an order for seizure. The president’s order amounted to legislation, which was a function of the legislature, not the executive. It was held unconstitutional, hence invalid. For the president to have such power, it has to originate from an Act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. However, there were dissenting opinions regarding the case.
The decision made in Korematsu v US was a rare one. It was held that it was possible to label an entire race a ‘ suspect classification’. It was held that the government would be allowed to deny a particular race their rights due to military considerations. This is within the powers of Congress and the war powers of the president. The disloyalty of a few members of a certain group of people may lead to such denial of rights to the whole group for purposes of the security of a region. This case points to the power of the president to give orders as the Commander-in-Chief. It also acts in times of emergencies like wars, where the government may use its powers to temporarily deny its citizens some constitutional rights.
The Hamdi v Rumsfeld gave the court jurisdiction to determine the legality of the detention of a citizen of the United States of America on foreign soil in combat as an enemy. It also gave the court mandate to determine the validity of a petition of a writ of habeas corpus subsequently made by the detainee. It also established military proceedings for detainees as more preferable fact-finding sessions as opposed to the habeas corpus courts. This case also supports the president’s war powers in relation to constitutional detention
The case of Rumsfeld v Padilla established the powers of the president to detain a citizen who is an enemy combatant as the commander in chief of the armed forces. It also supported the immediate physical custodian rule. This requires that during application of the petition, one cannot be granted habeas corpus, if the respondent indicated is not the immediate custodian of the detainee. This is because the court order for release shall be directed to the person who has direct custody of the person who has been detained.
Prior to Rasul v Bush, which was triggered by foreign detainees of terrorism, aliens who had been detained in a foreign land, or outside America, could not invoke the relief of a writ of habeas corpus. However, after the ruling made in this case, the court created a possibility for the same. It gave federal courts jurisdiction to determine the legality of detention of foreign detainees in a foreign land. It also gave them the jurisdiction to receive petitions from those who claimed they were being held against the law of United States of America. Though in its ruling the court only specified one foreign place, it is a general assumption that it referred to all military bases that were under the United States of America.
The Boumediene v Bush, sanctioned that in accordance to the presidential powers, the presidency could use all necessary and appropriate force in the war against terrorism. The case also settled based on the precedents that had been set, the legality of the detention of enemy combatants in the war against terrorism, their right according to the constitution of the United States of America to petition for a writ to habeas corpus and the powers of the president in relation to detention. This case established that all detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus, and their designation as citizens who have been acting as enemy combatants does not hinder them from applying for this writ.
These cases are essential Constitutional cases that establish issues of human rights conferred to citizens by virtue of being human beings and the exceptions thereto.