When Liberty Speaks: Why the Executive Branch Needs Reigned In
When Liberty Speaks: Why the Executive Branch Needs Reigned In
Max Handley
POL201
Thomas Huffman
8/20/2012
When Liberty Speaks: Why the Executive Branch Needs Reigned In
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states, in part: “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This Amendment would leave one to believe that no person, citizen or not, can constitutionally be denied “life, liberty, or property” without going through the proper process as set forth by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Yet, our Executive branch has used its Commander-in-Chief authority to deny persons being held as ‘enemy combatants’ those very liberties our founders spoke of in the Constitution. It is up to the citizens of the United States, and the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution by demanding the reigns be tightened on the Executive branch.
The Habeas Corpus established in the United States is an extension from the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 in England (Lobban & Halliday, 2011). The original declaration in the Magna carta only stated the no man shall be imprisoned contrary to law (Lobban & Halliday, 2011). The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 went further to prevent anyone from unconstitutionally misusing that person by denying him liberties, as well (Lobban & Halliday, 2011). According to (Lobban & Halliday, 2011) the writ is grounded in the prerogative powers of the king to protect all those who owed him allegiance; and to supervise those he had granted power. Halliday explains that the thinking of the time was that just as God departed from the laws of nature by performing miracles, the king also had the power to go beyond the law when needed. Keep in mind that most of the kings were considered to be chosen from God to be king. This plays into the thinking of the time. Halliday also contends that liberty was “taken from the language of Christian theology, which saw liberty as a gift from God, and one which came from being part of a corporate community.” (Lobban & Halliday, 2011, p. 260). Also keep in mind that when a writ offered a remedy to those who were detained unjustly, it was not protecting individual freedom, but rather checking whether the person’s liberties were being infringed upon (Lobban & Halliday, 2011). The founding fathers obviously wanted to protect those same liberties and prevent any branch of the government, either collectively or individually, from denying a person those liberties.
In order to truly appreciate any debate about Habeas Corpus not only should the