Habeaus Corpas

During his opening statement, Scalia employs rhetorical questions in order to elucidate that Americans’ lack of knowledge of the government forces judges to firmly abide by the United States’ unparalleled Constitution. He postulates, “How many of you have read the Federalist Papers?” The reality that “never more than about 5%” of his audience, who are “interested in the law,” has delved deep into the document portrays them as ignorant. With this concern, Scalia expounds upon his originalist ideals and encourages rivaling judges to alter their opinions of a flexible Constitution. Scalia credits his argument through the Framers who illustrated the significance of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers. Due to the fact that Americans are incapable of thoroughly interpreting the government, he attests that judges must abide by the precise words of the Constitution. Scalia advises his audience to

The use of pragmatism has become more popular in courts today because it can conform to the many changes

The Supreme Court of the United States is perhaps the most eminent judicial branch in the world and has served for a model for justice and democracy. However the Court is not exempted from scrutiny, and critics question the increasing politicized nature of the Court, from the appointment process to the nature of their decisions in landmark cases like; Dred Scott v. Sandford, Roe v. Wade to Bush v. Gore. Based on empirical evidence, this essay argues that the United States Supreme Court today is severely influenced by politics and not as much by law- at least in practice. Indeed, robust partisanship of the political interests of the President and Congress imposes on the constitutional function of the Court.

The US Government’s reaction to 9/11 suspended civil liberties for many people, whether terrorist-affiliated or not, out of fear of another attack. The common justification for such events is national security, and it is common rhetoric for politicians to claim that there is a tradeoff between civil liberties and national security. I seek to argue that the military commissions for trying terrorist suspects did not protect national security, but merely infringed upon civil liberties. The debate remains as to whether other situations might justify some infringement on the basis of the tradeoff argument, but military commissions after 9/11 do not offer a favorable outlook for the tradeoff position.

From time to time there arises a school of legal thought which undermines the errors of the past and establish truth. In the 21st centaury, this movement has been ongoing under the name of American Legal Realism. Legal realism, is a school of legal thought that is opposed to the dominant mechanical conception of adjudication and conventional view. The realists insist that on considering how courts really decide cases, it can be revealed that the decisions are not primarily based on law, but on the judge’s sense of what is “fair”. Least to say, those who agree with this theory claim that the judge himself is who creates the law. This paper will discuss theories of American legal realism discussed by theorists: Oliver Wendell Holmes and Jerome Frank. Secondly, the paper will focus on a few significant objections that one might have against the theory. To conclude, a strong opinion disagreeing with the objections against legal realism is depicted.

It is possible for judges to take either a Legal naturalism or positivism view when deciding difficult case like Griswold v. Connecticut or Katz v. The United States. The interpretation of the stated law without deviations subjected to morals or political coercion is the foundation to legal positivism. During the decision of these two controversial cases Justice Black takes the approach of legal positivism in his decisions because he interprets the direct law. During the ruling of Griswold v. Connecticut Justice Black supports his decision with a positivism outlook.

Furthermore, the political claims regarding the Supreme Court are often exaggerated. In 2012, almost half of the cases during that term were decided unanimously, and the Justices votes were split by the political party of the president whom appointed them in less than seven percent of cases (Hamilton, 2012). However, many of the cases in which the decision is unanimous or split by a more distant margin than 5-4 do not attract the public or media attention more controversial cases attract. If the public were more aware of such information the political branches of the government may be less able to ignite outrage in the political leanings of Supreme Court

What role do Human Rights play in the war on terror? How has this affected the foreign policy of the United States of America when combating this war?

In Saying What the Law Is Charles Fried asserts the importance of “constitutional doctrine” in the judicial process of the U.S. Supreme Court. Fried puts forth that doctrine via the interpretation of past Supreme Court cases, represents the lion’s share of constitutional law, and provides a buttress for the configurations of our government while concomitantly defining and protecting our individual rights. Fried claims early in the book that it is not a work of history or philosophy but an “understanding” of the topic of constitutional law. He provides an analysis on the practices or ways of thought that influence judicial opinions. Fried is a strong believer in

There are issues of discretion involve matters of life or death, torture, detention without trial, trial without juries, and basic freedoms to dissent and appear to raise from profiling that cut into notions of equal citizenship and equal protection. Many of which involve the human rights of citizens of other countries and some involve Americans as noted in Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res (2000). The debate concerns the tactical interplay of rules for U.S. citizens with rules for non-citizens. The risks to American civil liberties--and to the human rights of others--result from the efforts we will make to increase our security (and our freedom from fear) in any of three ways--prevention, consequence management, and punishment. So as we look at civil liberties the critical issues in the debate involves legal powers. What authority to quarantine or move people, to command resources or destroy property, to search without probable cause for extremely dangerous weapons (2000).

The pragmatist also asks, “What is the result?” As an example of pragmatism’s influence in America, the most widely cited federal jurist is Judge Richard Posner, who is a proponent of pragmatism.8 Posner has stated that torture should be used if it would work in a ticking time-bomb scenario.9 However, Posner’s statement is Boolean, allowing for torture only “if” it works in such a scenario. Such scenarios do not actually exist though.10 Even under pragmatism, while there might be some theoretical scenario where torture would be ethical, there is no real scenario where it would be

What we know today as pragmatism in the philosophical realm has its roots in American philosophy, and three individuals spearheaded its advancement, notably Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. Each of these philosophers helped pragmatism evolve into how it is perceived today. In this paper I will examine each philosopher’s contribution to the growth of pragmatism, arguing that Peirce provided the foundational beliefs for pragmatism and James took these beliefs in a different direction because of his interpretations of Peirce’s arguments, and that Dewey took James’ arguments a step further. In the following sections I will discuss Peirce’s beliefs first, and in the paragraphs after examine James and Dewey respectively,

Statutory and constitutional analyses are imperative in many different ways. However, some elements pertaining to legal philosophy are more significant than others.

Nevertheless, Lakoff’s approach echoes Hunter’s theory of conflicting moral authorities and presents an elaborated cognitive model. In his model, Lakoff explains that the conservatives and liberals are under the influence of two different interpretations. In the contemporary American political landscape, the major assumption is that language reflects specific frames, conceptual metaphors, narratives and emotions that are grounded in our conceptual system.

The expectation from our judges that they will always act objectively in making their decisions is correct but only to a certain extent. By using the theories of interpretation and judicial decision-making of both Dworkin and American Legal Realism, it is evident that a balancing act occurs between objective judgments and interpretation and subjective judgments and interpretation. Often, subjective judgments are the most dominant to a large extent. One must look at the ideas of Dworkin in terms of considering that judgments have aspects of both objectivity and subjectivity. One must also look at the ideas of American Legal Realism where subjectivity plays a gigantic role in judgments leaving objectivity with little or no influence