DOCSLIB.ORG

Article III U.S. Constitution--Judicial Department

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Article III U.S. Constitution--Judicial Department ARTICLE III JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT CONTENTS Page Section 1. Judicial Power, Courts, Judges ............................................................................... 597 Organization of Courts, Tenure, and Compensation of Judges ...................................... 597 One Supreme Court .................................................................................................... 598 Inferior Courts ............................................................................................................. 599 Abolition of Courts ............................................................................................... 600 Compensation .............................................................................................................. 600 Diminution of Salaries ......................................................................................... 600 Courts of Specialized Jurisdiction .............................................................................. 602 Legislative Courts: The Canter Case ......................................................................... 604 Power of Congress Over Legislative Courts ....................................................... 605 Review of Legislative Courts by Supreme Court ............................................... 606 The ``Public Rights'' Distinction .......................................................................... 607 Constitutional Status of the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals .................................................................................................. 610 Status of Courts of the District of Columbia ..................................................... 611 Bankruptcy Courts ............................................................................................... 613 Agency Adjudication ............................................................................................ 615 Noncourt Entities in the Judicial Branch ................................................................. 617 Judicial Power ............................................................................................................................ 618 Characteristics and Attributes of Judicial Power ............................................................ 618 ``Shall Be Vested'' ........................................................................................................ 619 Finality of Judgment as an Attribute of Judicial Power ................................................. 620 Award of Execution ..................................................................................................... 621 Ancillary Powers of Federal Courts ......................................................................................... 623 The Contempt Power .......................................................................................................... 623 Categories of Contempt ............................................................................................... 623 The Act of 1789 ............................................................................................................ 625 An Inherent Power ...................................................................................................... 625 First Amendment Limitations on the Contempt Power ........................................... 627 Due Process Limitations on Contempt Power: Right to Notice and to a Hearing Versus Summary Punishment ................................................................................ 629 Due Process Limitations on Contempt Power: Right to Jury Trial ........................ 630 Due Process Limitations on Contempt Power: Impartial Tribunal ......................... 631 Contempt by Disobedience of Orders ......................................................................... 634 Contempt Power in Aid of Administrative Power .................................................... 634 Sanctions Other than Contempt ....................................................................................... 635 Power to Issue Writs: The Act of 1789 ............................................................................. 636 Common Law Powers of District of Columbia Courts .............................................. 637 Habeas Corpus: Congressional and Judicial Control ............................................... 638 Habeas Corpus: The Process of the Writ ................................................................... 639 Congressional Limitation of the Injunctive Power .......................................................... 641 Injunctions Under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 ................................. 643 The Rule-Making Power and Powers Over Process ......................................................... 644 593 594 ART. IIIÐJUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Ancillary Powers of Federal CourtsÐContinued The Rule-Making Power and Powers Over ProcessÐContinued Limitations to This Power .......................................................................................... 645 Appointment of Referees, Masters, and Special Aids ............................................... 646 Power to Admit and Disbar Attorneys ...................................................................... 646 Section 2. Judicial Power and Jurisdiction .............................................................................. 647 Clause 1. Cases and Controversies; Grants of Jurisdiction ............................................ 647 Judicial Power and JurisdictionÐCases and Controversies .................................... 648 The Two Classes of Cases and Controversies .................................................... 649 Adverse Litigants ................................................................................................. 651 Collusive and Feigned Suits ......................................................................... 652 Stockholder Suits .......................................................................................... 653 Substantial Interest: Standing ............................................................................ 654 Citizens Suits ................................................................................................ 655 Taxpayer Suits .............................................................................................. 656 Constitutional Standards: Injury in Fact and Causation .......................... 658 Prudential Standing Rules ........................................................................... 661 Standing to Assert the Constitutional Rights of Others ........................... 662 Organizational Standing .............................................................................. 665 Standing of States to Represent Their Citizens ......................................... 665 Standing of Members of Congress ............................................................... 666 Standing to Challenge Nonconstitutional Governmental Action .............. 668 The Requirement of a Real Interest ................................................................... 670 Advisory Opinion .......................................................................................... 671 Declaratory Judgment .................................................................................. 673 Ripeness ......................................................................................................... 676 Mootness ........................................................................................................ 679 Retroactivity versus Prospectivity ............................................................... 683 Political Questions ............................................................................................... 687 Origins and Development ............................................................................. 688 The Doctrine Before Baker v. Carr ............................................................. 689 Baker v. Carr ................................................................................................ 693 Powell v. McCormack ................................................................................... 694 The Doctrine Reappears ............................................................................... 696 Judicial Review ............................................................................................................ 698 The Establishment of Judicial Review ............................................................... 698 Marbury v. Madison ..................................................................................... 701 Judicial Review and National Supremacy .................................................. 703 Limitations on the Exercise of Judicial Review ................................................. 705 Constitutional Interpretation ....................................................................... 705 Prudential Considerations ............................................................................ 706 The Doctrine of ``Strict Necessity'' ............................................................... 707 The Doctrine of Clear Mistake ..................................................................... 708 Exclusion of Extra-Constitutional Tests ..................................................... 709 Presumption of Constitutionality ...............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Political Effects of the Addition of Judgeships to the United States Supreme Court Following Electoral Realignments
    A Compliant Court: The Political Effects of the Addition of Judgeships to the United States Supreme Court Following Electoral Realignments Lauren Paige Joyce Judson Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Arts In Political Science Jason P. Kelly, Chair Wayne D. Moore Karen M. Hult August 7, 2014 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: Judicial Politics, Electoral Realignment, Alteration to the Supreme Court Copyright 2014, Lauren J. Judson A Compliant Court: The Political Effects of the Addition of Judgeships to the United States Supreme Court Following Electoral Realignments Lauren J. Judson ABSTRACT During periods of turmoil when ideological preferences between the federal branches of government fail to align, the relationship between the three quickly turns tumultuous. Electoral realignments especially have the potential to increase tension between the branches. When a new party replaces the “old order” in both the legislature and the executive branches, the possibility for conflict emerges with the Court. Justices who make decisions based on old regime preferences of the party that had appointed them to the bench will likely clash with the new ideological preferences of the incoming party. In these circumstances, the president or Congress may seek to weaken the influence of the Court through court-curbing methods. One example Congress may utilize is changing the actual size of the Supreme The size of the Supreme Court has increased four times in United States history, and three out of the four alterations happened after an electoral realignment. Through analysis of Supreme Court cases, this thesis seeks to determine if, after an electoral realignment, holdings of the Court on issues of policy were more congruent with the new party in power after the change in composition as well to examine any change in individual vote tallies of the justices driven by the voting behavior of the newly appointed justice(s).
    [Show full text]
  • 16-1423 Ortiz V. United States (06/22/2018)
    Summary 6/25/2018 1:41:01 PM Differences exist between documents. New Document: Old Document: 16-1423_new 16-1423 71 pages (394 KB) 71 pages (394 KB) 6/25/2018 1:40:53 PM 6/25/2018 1:40:53 PM Used to display results. Get started: first change is on page 43. No pages were deleted How to read this report Highlight indicates a change. Deleted indicates deleted content. indicates pages were changed. indicates pages were moved. file://NoURLProvided[6/25/2018 1:41:22 PM] (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ORTIZ v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES No. 16–1423. Argued January 16, 2018—Decided June 22, 2018 Congress has long provided for specialized military courts to adjudicate charges against service members. Today, courts-martial hear cases involving crimes unconnected with military service. They are also subject to several tiers of appellate review, and thus are part of an in- tegrated “court-martial system” that resembles civilian structures of justice. That system begins with the court-martial itself, a tribunal that determines guilt or innocence and levies punishment, up to life- time imprisonment or execution.
    [Show full text]
  • Just Because John Marshall Said It, Doesn't Make It So: Ex Parte
    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 2000 Just Because John Marshall Said it, Doesn't Make it So: Ex Parte Bollman and the Illusory Prohibition on the Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners in the Judiciary Act of 1789 Eric M. Freedman Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Eric M. Freedman, Just Because John Marshall Said it, Doesn't Make it So: Ex Parte Bollman and the Illusory Prohibition on the Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners in the Judiciary Act of 1789, 51 Ala. L. Rev. 531 (2000) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/53 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MILESTONES IN HABEAS CORPUS: PART I JUST BECAUSE JOHN MARSHALL SAID IT, DOESN'T MAKE IT So: Ex PARTE BoLLMAN AND THE ILLUSORY PROHIBITION ON THE FEDERAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR STATE PRISONERS IN THE JUDIcIARY ACT OF 1789 Eric M. Freedman* * Professor of Law, Hofstra University School of Law ([email protected]). BA 1975, Yale University;, MA 1977, Victoria University of Wellington (New Zea- land); J.D. 1979, Yale University. This work is copyrighted by the author, who retains all rights thereto.
    [Show full text]
  • An Orderly Approach to Federal Jurisdiction Issues in a Basic Course in United States Constitutional Law Thomas C
    Campbell Law Review Volume 12 Article 2 Issue 3 Summer 1990 April 1990 Untying the Gordian Knot: An Orderly Approach to Federal Jurisdiction Issues in a Basic Course in United States Constitutional Law Thomas C. Marks Jr. Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clr Part of the Jurisdiction Commons Recommended Citation Thomas C. Marks Jr., Untying the Gordian Knot: An Orderly Approach to Federal Jurisdiction Issues in a Basic Course in United States Constitutional Law, 12 Campbell L. Rev. 383 (1990). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Campbell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. Marks: Untying the Gordian Knot: An Orderly Approach to Federal Jurisdic UNTYING THE GORDIAN KNOT: AN ORDERLY APPROACH TO FEDERAL JURISDICTION ISSUES IN A BASIC COURSE IN UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THOMAS C. MARKS, JR.* I. INTRODUCTION .................................... 384 II. O VERVIEW ....................................... 385 III. A NALYSIS ........................................ 386 A. Barrier I, Part 1. Federal Question *...... 386 B. BarrierI, Part 2. Congressional Control Over the Supreme Court's Appellate Jurisdiction ....... 387 C. Barrier I, Part 3. Eleventh Amendment P roblems ................................... 389 D. Barrier II, Part 1. Case or Controversy In G eneral..................................... 391 E. Barrier II, Part 2. Ripeness .................. 393 F. Barrier II, Part 3. Mootness .................. 395 G. Barrier II, Parts 4 and 5. Taxpayer Standing and Citizen Standing: A Confusing Dichotomy. 400 H. Barrier II, Part 6. Collusive Lawsuits ......... 407 I. Barrier III, Part 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Ky-57 Vinson
    KY-57 VINSON Homepage Crypto KY-57 (VINSON) Index Voice encryption unit Enigma The KY-57 was a wide-band voice encryption unit that was developed in the USA during the 1970s as a replacement of the NESTOR cryptographic products, such as the KY-38. It was suitable for use with a Hagelin wide range of military radios and telehone lines. As part of the VINSON family of devices, it was the main Fialka crypto 'workhorse' of the US Army during the 1980s. Even today, many radios and voice encryption devices are still backwards compatible with the KY-57, that is also known as the TSEC/KY-57. The Siemens airborne version of the KY-57 is called the KY-58. Philips The KY-57 uses the NSA-developed Type-1 KY-57 voice encryption unit Nema SAVILLE cryptographic algorithm. When used in combination with a radio transceiver, such as the Racal SINCGARS non-ICOM RT-1439/VRC, the KY-57 STK allows signal fades or losses for up to 12 seconds without losing synchronization. Transvertex The KY-57 was eventually superceeded by the KY- Gretag 99 that offered newer - more advanced - Telsy cryptographic algorithms, but that was still backwards compatible with the KY-57. Later Tadiran SINCGARS ICOM radios, such as the RT-1523, had built-in KY-57 (VINSON) compatibility. USA USSR Both voice and data can be encrypted with the KY-57. Voice data is digitized using Continuous Variable Slope Delta modulation (CVSD), similar to other voice crypto systems of the same era, such as the UK Philips Spendex-10 , the Spendex 50 and the Telsy TS-500.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of U.S. Communications Security (U)
    A HISTORY OF U.S. COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY (U) THE DAVID G. BOAK LECTURES VOLUME II NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND 20755 The information contained in this publication will not be disclosed to foreign nationals or their representatives without express approval of the DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY. Approval shall refer specifically to this publication or to specific information contained herein. JULY 1981 CLASSIFIED BY NSA/CSSM 123-2 REVIEW ON 1 JULY 2001 NOT RELEASABLE TO FOREI6N NATIONALS SECRET HA~mLE YIA COMINT CIIA~HJELS O~JLY ORIGINAL (Reverse Blank) ---------- • UNCLASSIFIED • TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBJECT PAGE NO INTRODUCTION _______ - ____ - __ -- ___ -- __ -- ___ -- __ -- ___ -- __ -- __ --- __ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ iii • POSTSCRIPT ON SURPRISE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I OPSEC--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS ___ -------- --- ___ ---- _______________ ---- _ --- _ ----- _ 7 THREAT IN ASCENDANCY _________________________________ - ___ - - _ -- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 9 • LPI _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I I SARK-SOME CAUTIONARY HISTORY __ --- _____________ ---- ________ --- ____ ----- _ _ 13 THE CRYPTO-IGNITION KEY __________ --- __ -- _________ - ---- ___ -- ___ - ____ - __ -- _ _ _ 15 • PCSM _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    [Show full text]
  • Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. V. HEW: Standing to Sue Under the Establishment Clause Laury M
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 32 | Issue 4 Article 9 1-1981 Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. v. HEW: Standing to Sue under the Establishment Clause Laury M. Frieber Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Laury M. Frieber, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. v. HEW: Standing to Sue under the Establishment Clause, 32 Hastings L.J. 975 (1981). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol32/iss4/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. v. HEW: Standing to Sue Under the Establishment Clause By Laury M. Frieber* In Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. v. HEW,1 the Third Circuit recently held that an organization devoted to the principle of separation of church and state2 and four of its members have standing to challenge a government ac- tion allegedly violative of the establishment clause of the first amendment.3 Americans United marks a significant expansion at the circuit court level of the doctrine of standing to sue for redress of constitutional injury. The definition of injury in fact, an indis- pensible element of federil standing, was extended to include an "individuated injury' 4 resulting from an abridgement of a citizen's right--"protected by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment-to a government that does not establish religion.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    Case 1:16-cv-01729-RC Document 20 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STEVEN S. MICHEL, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 16-1729 (RC) : v. : Re Documents No.: 12, 16 : ADDISON MITCHELL MCCONNELL, et al., : : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I. INTRODUCTION In this case, the Court considers whether a citizen has standing to sue to compel the United States Senate to take action on a President’s Supreme Court nomination. Plaintiff Steven Michel seeks a preliminary injunction and writ of mandamus compelling the Senate to take action on President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the United States Supreme Court. He claims that Senators McConnell and Grassley have violated his Seventeenth Amendment right to elect his senators by depriving his home-state senators of a voice in the Senate. Because Mr. Michel’s alleged injuries are not sufficiently individualized, his proper recourse is through the political process, not the judiciary. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Mr. Steven Michel seeks a preliminary injunction and writ of mandamus compelling the United States Senate to “vote before the end of the 114th Congress on whether the Senate will Case 1:16-cv-01729-RC Document 20 Filed 11/17/16 Page 2 of 5 provide its advice and consent to the nomination of [Chief] Judge Garland to the United States Supreme Court.” Mot. for Prelim. Inj., at 4, ECF No. 12. He claims that Senators McConnell and Grassley have taken steps to prevent the entire Senate from voting on President Obama’s nomination, neglecting their constitutional duties to provide advice and consent on presidential nominations.
    [Show full text]
  • Justiciability Decisions of the Burger Court C
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 60 | Issue 5 Article 3 1-1-1985 Justiciability Decisions of the Burger Court C. Douglas Floyd Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation C. D. Floyd, Justiciability Decisions of the Burger Court, 60 Notre Dame L. Rev. 862 (1985). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol60/iss5/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Justiciability Decisions of the Burger Court C. Douglas Floyd* Table of Contents I. Central Characteristics of the Burger Court's Justiciability Decisions ................................ 863 A. Overriding Concern with Separation of Powers and Federalism ......................................... 863 B. Increasing Definition and Particularization............. 869 II. Injury ................................................ 871 A. Distinct and Palpable "Injury in Fact" as the ConstitutionalMinimum ............................. 871 B. Zone of Interests .................................... 887 III. Assertion of "Third Party Rights" . ................... 891 A. Third Party Standing Generally ...................... 891 B. First Amendment Overbreadth ........................ 902 IV. Representational Standing ............................ 909 A. OrganizationalStanding ............................. 909 B. Class Actions ......................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution in the Supreme Court: State and Congressional Powers, 1801-1835
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1982 The Constitution in the Supreme Court: State and Congressional Powers, 1801-1835 David P. Currie Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David P. Currie, "The Constitution in the Supreme Court: State and Congressional Powers, 1801-1835," 49 University of Chicago Law Review 887 (1982). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Law Review Law__Review _VOLUME 49 NUMBER 4 FALL 1982 1982 by The University of Chicago The Constitution in the Supreme Court: State and Congressional Powers, 1801-1835 David P. Curriet This article is the third installment of an attempt to analyze and criticize the constitutional work of the Supreme Court in his- torical sequence, from the lawyer's point of view.' In the twelve years of its existence before the appointment of John Marshall as Chief Justice, the Supreme Court began to de- velop lasting principles of constitutional adjudication, but it de- cided few significant constitutional questions. In the first decade of Marshall's tenure, apart from Marbury v. Madison,2 the Court's constitutional docket consisted almost entirely of relatively minor matters respecting the powers of the federal courts. Although im- t Harry N. Wyatt Professor of Law, University of Chicago. I should like to thank my colleagues Frank Easterbrook, Richard Epstein, Richard Helmholz, Dennis Hutchinson, Stanton Krauss, Philip B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Unconstitutionality of Justice Black
    BAUDE.PRINTER (DO NOT DELETE) 12/21/2019 12:16 PM The Unconstitutionality of Justice Black William Baude* In Ex parte Levitt, the Supreme Court denied standing to a pro se litigant making esoteric claims against the appointment of Justice Hugo Black. The Court’s short opinion is now an unremarkable mainstay of modern federal courts doctrine. But the case merits closer examination. Indeed, Levitt’s challenge was probably meritorious, and Hugo Black’s appointment unconstitutional. Moreover, the Court’s standing analysis was probably wrong—though there might have been other reasons to deny the challenge. And finally, while Justice Black’s opinions may be safe, the case’s aftermath raises intriguing questions about the Supreme Court’s role in politics and constitutional law. I. EX PARTE LEVITT ................................................................................. 328 A. On Paper ................................................................................. 328 B. In Real Life ............................................................................. 329 II. THE MERITS ........................................................................................ 332 A. The Emoluments Claim .......................................................... 333 1. Retirement vs. Resignation ................................................ 334 2. Retirement vs. Active Service ............................................ 336 3. The Defensibility of the Appointment ................................ 336 B. The Vacancy Claim................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ex Parte Bollman and the Unconstitutionality of the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act Dan Poulson
    Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly Volume 35 Article 9 Number 2 Winter 2008 1-1-2008 Suspension for Beginners: Ex Parte Bollman and the Unconstitutionality of the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act Dan Poulson Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Dan Poulson, Suspension for Beginners: Ex Parte Bollman and the Unconstitutionality of the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 35 Hastings Const. L.Q. 373 (2008). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol35/iss2/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Suspension for Beginners: Ex Parte Bollman and the Unconstitutionality of the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act by DAN POULSON* I. Introduction The writ of habeas corpus (Latin for "you have the body") refers to a proceeding in which a court inquires into the legal sufficiency of an individual's imprisonment by ordering the responsible official to bring the prisoner before the court and justify the confinement.1 If the court determines that there is no legal basis for the confinement, the prisoner is set free. Since its creation in the thirteenth century,
    [Show full text]