suspension-clause

Lambroza- Suspension Clause

Written Component

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Suspension Clause, grants prisoners the right to habeas corpus. This concept originated as an English law that stated that an imprisoned person has the right to challenge the legality of their sentencing. If a court finds that the reasons for their punishment were unlawful, the prisoner must then be released from their detainment. Originally, this was created as a way to protect a prisoner’s rights and freedom, as monarchs were known to send people to jail without a trial. However, it was largely ignored in England until Parliament passed the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. Thus, the Framers of the constitution were likely trying to protect those who were unjustly sent to prison, and limit the government’s infringement on a citizen’s right to due process.

This clause is commonly interpreted as granting U.S. citizens detained by America and non-citizens detained on U.S. soil the writ of habeas corpus, except in cases of rebellion or domestic invasion, where granting this right to prisoners could be detrimental to public safety and security. However, one major disagreement among Constitution scholars is the scope of whom this clause applies to. For most of its history, it has not applied to non-citizens imprisoned outside of the country, as it was not explicitly stated in the text, as well as there being no precedent for courts having this jurisdiction. A key example of this is Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950), in which the Supreme Court ruled that 21 german citizens detained by the US Army in Germany did not have the right to challenge the legality of their sentence. Despite this, it was ruled in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) that a group of soldiers held in Guantanamo Bay had the ability to petition for a writ of Habeus Corpus. As such, this newly established precedent granted courts the ability to extend the writ of Habeus Corpus to non-citizens detained outside America if the courts deem it reasonable.

The origins of this clause are rooted in the authoritarian power of the English monarchy, in which it was fully within a king or queen’s power to send someone to jail without the benefit of a trial. In putting a check on the monarch’s power, Parliament asserts its political power over the “Divine Right of Kings”; in short, the monarchy of England justified its existence and position by claiming to be divinely chosen. This proved ineffective, as during the English Civil Wars (1642-1652), the monarchy was overthrown and the King was executed. Though it was eventually reinstated, the fact that Parliament could institute restrictions on the supposedly boundless power of the King was a reflection of the developing Enlightenment ideals of the time. This included a shift toward logic and de-centralized power and away from authoritarianism, ideals which both Parliament and the framers of the Constitution seeked to embody in their governments.

Elections and Suspension Clause – Alex Berman

Video

Written Component

The Articles of Confederation demonstrated the dangers of giving states too much power, so when drafting the Elections Clause worries arose that if each state had complete control over their own elections, they could compromise Congress’ abilities by opting not to hold an election at all. Thus, the Elections Clause gives states the authority to regulate most aspects of congressional elections, while still offering Congress the power to overwrite any of those regulations. In the Elections Clause, a lack of clarification, such as the meaning of state legislature and what counts as prescribing the “times, places, and manner of holding elections,” has led to varying interpretations of the right of states to regulate elections.

In the supreme court case of Cook V. Gralike, Missouri argued that they could put negative warnings on an election ballot based on if a candidate would support a bill or not. This was ruled unconstitutional because while it is an alteration of the manner of an election, it at the same time is an attempt to regulate the outcome of the election. I agree with this decision because the Elections Clause allows states and congress to regulate the manner of congressional elections, but not their outcomes. For the sake of clarification, the Elections Clause should be amended to define in more detail state legislature and the regulatory actions that states are allowed to take. The Elections Clause demonstrates how the faults seen in the Articles of Confederation were addressed in the Constitution, primarily by granting the federal government power over the states. In article 1, section 9 of the Constitution, the Suspension Clause explains the application and suspension of habeas corpus.

The writ of habeas corpus protects citizens from being arbitrarily arrested by allowing someone who has been arrested to challenge the legal justification of their detention in court. Americans knew that people in England, up until just over a century before the Constitutional Convention, were sometimes imprisoned for life without any trial. Thus, the writ of habeas corpus was of the utmost importance to include in the Constitution. Equally important, however, was Congress’ right to suspend it, illustrated by the fact that habeas corpus was suspended just months before the Constitutional Convention during Shays’ rebellion. The Suspension Clause insures that someone who has been arrested has the right to a trial, unless the arrest is during a rebellion or invasion. A debate about the Suspension Clause, however, regards the process with which habeas corpus can be suspended. In the four instances of suspension, three times the president got permission through Congress, however during the civil war Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus on his own, without the expressed consent of Congress.

To me it would make more sense for a president to first need to get permission from congress to prevent the president from having sole authority to make unlimited uncontested arrests. Because of this, I believe that the Suspension Clause should be amended to clarify the process to suspend habeas corpus.