New York Itmes Vs United States Case Study

“It is an ancient English legal concept that empowers judges to order imprisoned persons to be brought into core to determine if they are being legally held” (Lincoln and the Writ of Liberty). This quote comes from “Lincoln and the Writ of Liberty” showing how the writ of habeas of corpus allows a fair trial for all criminals. The Constitution and Bill of Rights includes accused persons the right to fair and speedy trial, a jury of peers, and protection from cruel or unusual punishment. “On September 24, 1862, Lincoln issued a proclamation unprecedented in American history. He suspended the writ of liberty everywhere in the United States. The suspensions applied to Confederate spies or to those who aided the rebel cause, interfered with military enlistments, resisted the draft, or were ‘guilty of any disloyal practice” (Lincoln and the Writ of Liberty). Mrs. Surratt was accused to be an aid in the rebel cause and the suspension of the writ of liberty affected her trial immensely. Mary Surratt’s execution was not equitable because she did not have access to the basic rights given to U.S.

The Bill of Rights was ratified in in 1791, eight years after the revolutionary war. During war times British soldiers were finding room and board in private civilian homes without owner consent. The English quartering act inspired the third amendment which states “no soldier shall in times of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law” (94). The last war fought on American soil was the civil war, which ended 1865, which is now 150 years into the past. Today the third amendment is irrelevant. There may be need for the third amendment in the future but currently this (quartering of soldiers) is not a problem we are facing today.

The government cannot take away a person’s life, property, or freedom without following certain steps that give the person a

Throughout American history, the writ of habeas Corpus has been the basis of the legal system of the United States, meant to preserve civil freedoms. Habeas corpus established a constitutional check on any dictatorial power that tried to present itself. It allowed any individual that was arrested to stand in front of the court to challenge whether they were being imprisoned according to the law of the land, ensuring their civil liberties weren 't threatened; however, only in times when the stability of a country was threatened could it be temporarily suspended. President Lincoln came into office in 1861 and by the

There are five main positions on how the courts should view civil liberties during war time: success, no exception, maybe, dilemma, and living constitution. “Success” is the “whatever it takes to win” approach, meaning that rights given to the individual by the US constitution can be revoked during wartime. “No exception” is the opposite to the success approach, meaning that no matter what an individual’s rights cannot be revoked at any time for any reason. The stance of “maybe” means if there is an immediate threat then

According to the Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Nowhere in the First Amendment does it state that in times of war, the government can change the laws that have been made to protect the people of the United States. Although some thought President Wilson’s actions were just, he did not abide by the rules of the First Amendment, and because of that, he went too far in limiting people’s civil liberties during World War

After Fort Semester in South Carolina was attacked, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus by issuing presidential executive order on 27 April 1861, which was applicable across the entire US (Manuell, 2013). Through this order, Winfield Scott, who was the commanding general of the army was authorized to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, implying that citizens in Maryland could be arrested if they were found involved in violating the country’s laws. Consequently, thousands of people were detained in being suspected of sympathizing or spying for the Confederates (Dirck, 2010).

By Putting all Japanese descent people in internment camps had stripped them from Their rights.In the Declaration of Independence it states that "All men are created equal , that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." So as for the Japanese citizens they were not given the rights that Americans' have.What about the Constitution Stating that They have a right to due process or they need a search warrant before they search and seize.But why can the government take you from

The case New York Times Co. Vs United States in summary was a first amendment battle between the United States government and the prominent newspaper cooperation New York Times in 1971. The premises of this legal battle was based on the New York Times reporter Daniel Ellsberg publishing in excerpts illegally leaked, classified documents containing the United States involvement in the Vietnam War specifically on the anticipated death counts (Institution, 2015, p. n .p). However, The United States government finding out about leakage placed a prior restraint also known as “government action that prohibits speech or other expression before it can take place” on New York Times cooperation based on National Security grounds (Prior Restraint, 2015). The case, despite the over powering strength of the nation and the accusations against the New York Times Cooperation the case was ruled in favor of the New York Times by the Supreme Court (Curry, Riley, & Battistoni, 2015, p. 458).

To sum, the case is about an advertising the newspaper included some inaccurate story about the civic leaders, civil right events, and Sullivan. Sullivan (a public official) believed that the defamatory comments that were made of him were making a negative impact on his life, thus he sued the New York times. The court in Alabama at the time ruled “The law … implies legal injury from bare facts of publication itself, falsity and malice are presumed, general damages no need to presume.” Thus, the court from Alabama gave Sullivan a compensation of five hundred thousand dollars. New York times decided to take this case to the supreme court because they believe their 1st amendment rights were being violated. Therefore, a new question arose whether the first amendment protects defamatory, false statements concerning public officials? The court ruled that the 1st amendment does protect the publication of all statements, even false ones, concerning the conduct of a public official except when the statement was made with actual malice. Once again, we notice the irony of freedom of speech the issue is citizens are not informed that under the 1st amendment there is sufficient rights guarantee. It is not solely having the right to express our emotions towards the government, it is to expose information to citizens and have the citizens decided for themselves. Democracy does not work if the government or public official try to hide information from its citizens. Democracy function when there is a clear majority of press that expose the truth and allow people to determine what the issue is. Press must be able to protect us against an overreaching government. Sometimes executive power tries to control the press because they do not want to inform the truth about that for example the Watergates scandal, Edward Snowden, Wiki leaks and

On September 15, 1863 President Abraham Lincoln temporarily suspended Habeas Corpus, which is the right to due process. Anyone who was a confederate sympathiser or spoke out against the war were arrested, put in jail and weren 't given a trial until after the war was over. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus because he wanted to suppress dissenters to strengthen the War effort. More than 13,000 civilians in the Union were arrested under martial law throughout the War. Lincoln viewed his action as justified since he believed the country was in a time of crisis.

Since the creation of the constitution in 1789, people have found ways to disobey the laws written by our founding fathers. Most crimes have punishments that give fair consequences to the misconduct of the person, but some cases prove otherwise. The Bill of Rights were created to override all other law and provide a basis for moral wrongs and rights. Each amendment was written with a purpose to shape our country and give individual citizens the rights they believed were naturally theirs. One case, taken into the hands of the Supreme Court during World War I, caused an uproar of disagreement, to whether the case was decided unfairly. To this day, the case still remains arguable to whether this individual deserved the punishment that was given.

In the past, there has always been conflict between the free press and the government. This conflict was very evident in the Pentagon Papers case, also known as New York Times Co. v. United States. Historically, the Supreme Court has disagreed on the limitations that can be placed on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court faced these issues in the case of The New York Times. The newspaper obtained a copy of a Defense Department report that explained government deception in the Vietnam War. The Pentagon Papers emerged when the American people disagreed on the United States involvement in the war. Under the First Amendment, The New York Times argued

Ever since the Bush Administration and the events of September 11, 2001, the American people have dealt with the government taking away bits and bits of their constitutional rights. Such rights like the freedom of association, speech, unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to legal representation, speedy and public trial, and the right to liberty. Any new law that infringes on these rights ands is created and passed is a bit of freedom being taken away. The government has limited individuals’ right to freedom of assembly by authorities seeking to repress the activities of those that are simply defending human rights. Censorship has also limited

I agree with the courts decisions. Even during a major event like Guantanamo, ones rights and liberty’s should still be protected. Habeas corpus is a right guaranteed in Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. Habeas corpus is a prisoner's one way