DOCSLIB.ORG

Judge Cadwalader's Opinion on the Court Case of Ex Parte Merryman

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Judge Cadwalader's Opinion on the Court Case of Ex Parte Merryman Judge Cadwalader’s Opinion on the Court Case of Ex Parte Merryman from Judge John Cadwalader papers, Box 264, Folder 2, Civil War The following is an undated opinion on the case of ex parte Merryman. John Merryman was a citizen of Maryland and officer in the Maryland cavalry who was held without charges in Fort McHenry as a result of President Lincoln’s revocation of habeas corpus in that state. John’s brother, Major General George Cadwalader, was in charge of Fort McHenry at the time of this case. If the enclosed report is accurate, Gen’ Cadwalader, though apprently correct in his judgement of the position which he should have taken, has committed several errors in the execution of his plan. In his [return?] to the habeas corpus he should have simply stated that hostilities exist between the United States and certain enemies of their government against whom its military forces are, under the President’s orders, mustered in hostile array, that, as an officer in Command of such a military force, he holds Mr. Merryman as a prisoner of war, and that he is not, at present, authorized either to hand him over the civil authorities, or to discharge him, wherefore his body cannot be brought before the Chief Justice under the writ. The question is not, as Genl C’s return erroneously opines, whether the writ of habeas corpus is, or should be, suspended, but whether the case is a proper one for the enforcement of the mandate of such a writ. Congress alone has the power to suspend the writ when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require such suspension. The return erroneously assumes not only that the President may suspend it, but that he may even confer a discretionary power to do so upon a military suborbinate. There was no occasion to have assumed this untenable position. That a habeas corpus cannot be obtained by a prisoner of war, or by a person of whom the Government claims the custody as such prisoner appears from the cases . [case citations]. If the return had set forth such a detention, in proper language, the Chief Justice might perhaps, accoording to his reasoning in 21Howard 506, have excused not bringing in the body. In Tremaine 304 [364?], is the case of a habeas corpus out of the King’s Bench to the Constable of Chester Castle who returned that the prisoner was in custody under an attachment out of a Court of the County Palatine of Chester, for a cause arising therein, wherefore the body and the cause of capture and detention could not be brought before the King’s Bench. Therefore, if the application of Mr. Merryman had shown that he was in custody as a prisoner of war the Chief Justice might have refused to award the habeas corpus. As this did not thus appear, it was absolutely necessary for him to issue the writ. It therefore became necessary that the return should show that the person in custody was detained as a prisoner of war. This should have been done directly, and not evasively, in the present case, argumentatively. If the return had only been argumentative, and had shown substantially that he was detained as a prisoner of war, it might have sufficed, or have been amendable. But this misfortune, of this return is that the substantial causes of detention set forth are cognizable peculiarly by the Chief Justice to whom it is addressed, and not by the military or Executive organ of the Government. The return, in substance, charges the prisoner with treason which, if he was guily of it, is an offence not cognizable by a military captor, or custodian, but by civil tribunals alone. As this return did not justify or excuse the opinion to bring in the body of the prisoner, the Chief Justice of course issued immediately the attachment. This could not have been delayed, as Genl C’s return seems to suggest, from any consideration of policy or other discretionary considertation. Legal process cannot be thus delayed where any question of right, and particularly the right of personal liberty is concerned. Whether General Cadwalader can amend the return after an [?] has been awarded, without first purging himself of the contempt, is a question for the consideration of his counsel. The question, doubtless, would be considered by the Chief Justice as favorably as the circumstances would permit, because the return is on its face, that of a person unaided by legal knowledge or advice. But any continuance of delay to take such advice might aggravate contempt, as every man is bound to know, or to inform himself of the law, and the excuse of ignorance of it is never allowed. Whereas a proposal to amend the return would be judicious is, however, questionable. The time and place are most unfavorable for the decision of the difficult points involved in the question when, and how far, a military commander can refuse to surrender a prisoner of war to the civil tribunals or to bring in his body under a Habeas Corpus. The present return, as an admission of the facts stated in it, might contradict an amended return simply describing the party detained as a prisoner of war. Such a prisoner might have been either a deserter from Genl C’s command, or a captive enemy. [original emphasis] Had the return been originally in this form, the questions whether its truth could be contested and whether it was sufficently specific would have been arguable before any process of attachment could have been issued. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Great Writ: Article I Habeas Corpus
    The Great Writ Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: Habeas Corpus RECOMMENDED GRADE/ABILITY LEVEL: 11th-12th Grade RECOMMENDED LESSON LENGTH: One 50 minute class period ESSENTIAL QUESTION: When does a negative right become a right and, in the case of Habeas Corpus, to whom and in what cases does this right extend? OVERVIEW: In addition to the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, there are also a great deal of rights inherent to the Constitution itself, including the right to Habeas Corpus relief, created via a negative right. In this lesson, students will explore the history and purpose of the Habeas Corpus clause in the Constitution. In consideration of past and present caselaw concerning the application of Habeas Corpus (emphasizing issues of national security and separation of powers), students are tasked with the job of considering the question: When is a writ a right? To whom and in what cases can it extend? MATERIALS: 1. Article: You Should Have the Body: 5. Document: United States Circuit Court of Understanding Habeas Corpus by James Appeals, Second Circuit Decision: Bradley v. Landman (Appendix A) Watkins (Appendix D) [Middle challenge text] 2. Worksheet: 5 Ws of the Writ of Habeas 6. Document: Ex. Parte Merryman (Appendix Corpus (Appendix B) E) [Challenge text] 3. Prezi: The Great Writ: Habeas Corpus Prezi 7. Article: Constitution Check: Is the (found at: http://prezi.com/atlq7huw-adq/? president’s power to detain terrorism utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy) suspects about to lapse? by Lyle Denniston (Appendix F) 4. Document: Supreme Court Decision of 8. Protocol: Decoding a Court Opinion Boumediene v.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II: Rights and Liberties Howard Gillman, Mark A. Graber
    AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM Volume II: Rights and Liberties Howard Gillman, Mark A. Graber, and Keith E. Whittington INDEX OF MATERIALS ARCHIVE 1. Introduction 2. The Colonial Era: Before 1776 I. Introduction II. Foundations A. Sources i. The Massachusetts Body of Liberties B. Principles i. Winthrop, “Little Speech on Liberty” ii. Locke, “The Second Treatise of Civil Government” iii. The Putney Debates iv. Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Laws of England” v. Judicial Review 1. Bonham’s Case 2. Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Laws of England” C. Scope i. Introduction III. Individual Rights A. Property B. Religion i. Establishment 1. John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Man ii. Free Exercise 1. Ward, The Simple Cobler of Aggawam in America 2. Penn, “The Great Case of Liberty of Conscience” C. Guns i. Guns Introduction D. Personal Freedom and Public Morality i. Personal Freedom and Public Morality Introduction ii. Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Laws of England” IV. Democratic Rights A. Free Speech B. Voting i. Voting Introduction C. Citizenship i. Calvin’s Case V. Equality A. Equality under Law i. Equality under Law Introduction B. Race C. Gender GGW 9/5/2019 D. Native Americans VI. Criminal Justice A. Due Process and Habeas Corpus i. Due Process Introduction B. Search and Seizure i. Wilkes v. Wood ii. Otis, “Against ‘Writs of Assistance’” C. Interrogations i. Interrogations Introduction D. Juries and Lawyers E. Punishments i. Punishments Introduction 3. The Founding Era: 1776–1791 I. Introduction II. Foundations A. Sources i. Constitutions and Amendments 1. The Ratification Debates over the National Bill of Rights a.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mayor and the President by George W. Liebmann
    The Mayor and the President by George W. Liebmann This symposium has unlikely origins. It was in some measure prompted by a recent speech before the Supreme Court Historical Society by the celebrated Professor John Yoo. By way of demonstrating that the policies relating to detention and interrogation with which he is identified were consonant with American traditions, Professor Yoo delivered an address contending that the Merryman and Milligan cases were aberrations, what Justice Frankfurter called in another context, “derelicts on the waters of the law”. He alleged that “Merryman remains unknown to almost all but those scholars who toil in the academic fields of the separation of powers or the early days of the Civil War.”1 Merryman of course is better known than that. It was the subject of a centennial symposium in the federal district court for Maryland in 1961, addressed by William L. Marbury, Chief Judge Roszel C. Thomsen and Taney’s biographer H.H.Walker Lewis.2 It figures prominently in a number of books on executive power in wartime by such as Carl Brent Swisher (1974)3, Clinton Rossiter (1945)4, Frederick Bernays Wiener (1940)5 and Charles Warren (1935)6 that you will not find prominently cited in the recent writings of Professor Yoo, as well as in Chief Justice Rehnquist’s book on the subject.7 In 1961, executive detention without trial was not a burning issue. It is now. There is a vast literature, and there is therefore no excuse for another redundant discussion. The remarks of all three speakers today will therefore focus on unpublished documents by or about the contending 1 protagonists.
    [Show full text]
  • And Mccardle)
    Merryman and Milligan (and Mccardle) JOHN YOO* It has been said that only Jesus and Shakespeare have been the subject of more works than Abraham Lincoln. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't still keep trying to get things right. I am going to be adding to that body of literature, on the relationship between Lincoln, the Supreme Court, and the Civil War. The cases that I address here make up two­ federacy, in Indiana, who was tried and sen­ thirds of the three "m"s of the Supreme Court's tence by a military commission-an old form encounter with the Civil War: Ex parte Mer­ of ad hoc military court established by com­ ryman, 1 Ex parte Milligan,2 and Ex parte Mc­ manders for the trial of violations of the laws Cardle. 3 All three case names bear the styling of war and the administration of justice in oc­ "ex parte" because all three were brought on cupied territory. behalf of citizens detained by the armed forces In these two cases, federal courts ordered ofthe Union. All three detainees sought release the release of the petitioners on the ground that under the ancient writ of habeas corpus, which the military had exceeded its constitutional au­ requires the government to show the factual thority. Both opinions contained stirring lan­ and legal grounds for detention to a federal guage about the vitality of constitutional rights judge. I will explain why the cases of the Civil even under the pressure of wartime and the War did not assume the landmark importance, need to maintain checks and balances on the despite their circumstances and language, of a executive's powers.
    [Show full text]
  • Habeas Corpus, Suspension, and Detention: Another View
    Habeas Corpus, Suspension, and Detention: Another View The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation David L. Shapiro, Habeas Corpus, Suspension, and Detention: Another View, 82 Notre Dame L. Rev. 59 (2006). Published Version http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol82/iss1/2/ Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:13548974 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Notre Dame Law Review Volume 82 Article 2 Issue 1 Federal Courts, Practice & Procedure 11-1-2006 Habeas Corpus, Suspension, and Detention: Another View David L. Shapiro Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Recommended Citation David L. Shapiro, Habeas Corpus, Suspension, and Detention: Another View, 82 Notre Dame L. Rev. 59 (2006). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol82/iss1/2 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]. HABEAS CORPUS, SUSPENSION, AND DETENTION: ANOTHER VIEW David L. Shapiro* "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be sus- pended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."' INTRODUCTION The Suspension Clause, as the quoted language is generally de- scribed, is as straightforward as an English sentence can be.
    [Show full text]
  • T Exas Review
    A T EXAS REVIEW Of L AW & POLITICS VOL. 20, No. I FALL 2015 PAGES 1-167 JUDICIAL SUPREMACY HAS ITS LIMITS John Yoo JUDICIAL OVERREACH AND AMERICA'S DECLINING DEMOCRATIC VOICE: THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DECISIONS Brent G. McCune WHEN CONGRESS SPEAKS, DOES THE SUPREME COURT LISTEN? EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CONGRESSIONAL PARTICIPATION AS AMICUS CURIAE BEFORE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DURING THE REHNQUIST COURT JudithanneScourfield McLauchlan Thomas Gay RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION IN THE WORKPLACE: WHY FEDERAL COURTS FAIL TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL PROTECTION OF RELIGIOUS EMPLOYEES Debbie N. Kaminer BUT THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT THE PROBLEM Lino A. Graglia SUBSCRIBE TO THE TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS The Texas Review of Law & Politics is published twice yearly, fall and spring. To subscribe to the Texas Review of Law & Politics, provide the Review with your name, billing and mailing addresses. email: [email protected] online: www.trolp.org or standard mail: Texas Review of Law & Politics The University of Texas School of Law 727 East Dean Keeton Street Austin, Texas 78705-3299 Annual subscription rate: $30.00 (domestic); $35.00 (international). ISSN #1098-4577. REPRINTS It's not too late to get a copy of one of your favorite past articles. See the complete list of the Review's past articles at www.trolp.org. Reprint orders should be addressed to: William S. Hein & Co., Inc. 2350 North Forest Road Getzville, NY 14068 TEXAS REVIEW 0 LAw & POLITICS VOL. 20, NO.1 FALL 2015 PAGES 1-167 ARTICLES JUDICIAL SUPREMACY HAS ITS LIMITS John Yoo.................................................................................... 1 JUDICIAL OVERREACH AND AMERICA'S DECLINING DEMOCRATIC VOICE: THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DECISIONS Brent G.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Cases
    TABLE OF CASES 2575 TABLE OF CASES Page 324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy, 479 U.S. 335 (1987)........................................................ 2247, 2550 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996)....... 1255, 1257–58, 2252, 2481, 2572 A A. & G. Stevedores v. Ellerman Lines, 369 U.S. 355 (1962).............................................. 1677 A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950).................. 330, 332–34 A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)...... 77–78, 83–84, 91–92, 94, 204–05, 576 A.L. Mechling Barge Lines v. United States, 368 U.S. 324 (1961)................................. 758–59 A. T. & T. Co. v. United States, 299 U.S. 232 (1936)......................................................... 1547 Aaron v. McKinley, 173 F.Supp. 944 (E.D. Ark. 1959)......................................................... 509 Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971).......................................................................... 2155–56 Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959)............................................................. 1459–60 Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967).................................................. 746, 755 Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233 (2007).................................................... 1702, 2490 Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960)............................................................... 315, 1376 Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U.S. 765 (1931)....................................................... 1810, 1848 Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)...... 730, 1052, 1063, 1069–70, 1090–91, 1093, 1097, 1107, 2420 Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506 (1859).......................................... 784, 876, 880, 969 Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977).................................................................... 1462 Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977).......................... 1132, 1181–82, 1209, 1232 A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gold Clause Cases and Constitutional Necessity, 64 Fla
    Florida Law Review Volume 64 | Issue 5 Article 3 10-17-2012 The Gold lC ause Cases and Constitutional Necessity Gerard N. Magliocca Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Gerard N. Magliocca, The Gold Clause Cases and Constitutional Necessity, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 1243 (2012). Available at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol64/iss5/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Law Review by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Magliocca: The Gold Clause Cases and Constitutional Necessity THE GOLD CLAUSE CASES AND CONSTITUTIONAL NECESSITY Gerard N. Magliocca Abstract This Article presents a case study of how constitutional actors respond when the rule of law and necessity are sharply at odds and provides some background on Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1935, the Supreme Court heard constitutional challenges to the abrogation of ―gold clauses‖ in contracts and Treasury bonds. Gold clauses guaranteed that creditors would receive payment in gold dollars as valued at the time a contract was made. Due to the deflation that followed the Great Depression, this meant that debtors were being forced to pay back much more than they owed originally. To stop a looming wave of bankruptcies, Congress passed a Joint Resolution declaring all gold clauses null and void. Following oral argument, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was concerned that the Court would invalidate the Joint Resolution.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case for the Twenty-First Century Constitutional Canon: Schneiderman V
    C:\program files\qualcomm\eudora\attach\394840.doc Saved on: 1/22/2003 6:15 PM A Case for the Twenty-First Century Constitutional Canon: Schneiderman v. United States DAVID FONTANA∗ I. INTRODUCTION Hidden in the basements of American law libraries and in the Westlaw and Lexis databases is a generally ignored 1943 case, Schneiderman v. United States.1 Schneiderman is a case of substantial importance and in- terest that has belonged in the constitutional canon for some time. In Schneiderman, the Supreme Court of the United States blocked the gov- ernment’s attempt to denaturalize an American citizen, a leader of the Communist Party, because the Court found that Communists could be “at- tached to the principles of the Constitution.”2 The Court also announced a new, relatively high evidentiary burden that the government has to meet in order to strip naturalized citizens of their citizenship.3 Schneiderman is of even greater importance after September 11, 2001, because it sheds light on several key issues facing both this country and its law students and lawyers. September 11, 2001 was a monumental day in American history, politics, culture, and law. The after-effects of that day have just begun to trickle into university classrooms across the country. There are many reports of course offerings that address topics related to September 11. For instance, immediately after September 11, the Univer- ∗ D.Phil. expected, Oxford University, 2004; J.D. expected, Yale University, 2004; B.A., Univer- sity of Virginia, 1999. Many thanks to the following individuals for their assistance with this project and for their comments on all or part of the ideas in this Article: Bruce A.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Power Over the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Has Never Been Judically Determined Because the 124208 U.S
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOL. 109 DECEMBER, 1960 No. 2 CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER -THE APPELLATE JTRISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT LEONARD G. RATNER t The Constitution gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" over all cases within the judicial power of the United States originating in state or lower federal courts.1 From time to time since 1796 the Supreme Court has used language in its opinions sug- gesting that by virtue of the exceptions and regulations clause its ap- t Lecturer, Harvard Law School. A.B. 1937, University of California (Los An- geles); LL.B. 1940, University of California (Berkeley). Member, California Bar. 1 U.S. CoNsT. art. III, § 2. See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821) ; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816). After defining the judicial power of the United States, the section provides that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in certain specified cases and appellate jurisdiction "in all the other Cases before mentioned." The original jurisdiction thus granted is not exclusive; state and lower federal courts may constitutionally exercise a concurrent jurisdiction in such cases. Plaquemines Tropical Fruit Co. v. Henderson, 170 U.S. 511 (1898) ; Ames v. Kansas ex rel. Johnston, 111 U.S. 449 (1884) ; B6rs v. Preston, 111 U.S. 252 (1884); United States v. Ravara, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 297 (C.C.D. Pa. 1793). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1251, 1331-32, 1345, 1350-51 (1958) ; Act of Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • Boumediene V. Bush, Appellate Avoidance Mechanisms, and Black Holes Extending Beyond Guantanamo Bay
    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 23 (2014-2015) Issue 4 Article 3 May 2015 Historically Unappealing: Boumediene v. Bush, Appellate Avoidance Mechanisms, and Black Holes Extending Beyond Guantanamo Bay Dennis Schmelzer Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Fourteenth Amendment Commons Repository Citation Dennis Schmelzer, Historically Unappealing: Boumediene v. Bush, Appellate Avoidance Mechanisms, and Black Holes Extending Beyond Guantanamo Bay, 23 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 965 (2015), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol23/iss4/3 Copyright c 2015 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj HISTORICALLY UNAPPEALING: BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH, APPELLATE AVOIDANCE MECHANISMS, AND BLACK HOLES EXTENDING BEYOND GUANTANAMO BAY Dennis Schmelzer* Spain professes as high a regard for the principles of liberty as we do. Yet in 1899 we found hundreds of prisoners in the jails of Cuba who had been imprisoned for years without trial for want of some definite and certain way in which they could avail themselves prac- tically of the principle. One of these wretches had been imprisoned for eleven years theoretically awaiting trial. General declarations in favor of fair, impartial and speedy trial for persons accused of crime, are worthless without specific provisions enabling the accused to require that he be brought to trial or set free; that he be acquainted with the evidence against him; that he be confronted with the wit- nesses against him; that he have process for the production of his own witnesses; that he be protected in refusing to testify against himself, and that he have counsel for his defense.1 INTRODUCTION U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Supremacy and Its Discontents Dale Carpenter
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2003 Judicial Supremacy and Its Discontents Dale Carpenter Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Carpenter, Dale, "Judicial Supremacy and Its Discontents" (2003). Constitutional Commentary. 153. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/153 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JUDICIAL SUPREMACY AND ITS DISCONTENTS Dale Carpenter* [T]he federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.... 1 The decision [Brown v. Board of Education] tortured the Constitution-the South will torture the decision. 2 Will nobody defend judicial supremacy anymore?3 The Supreme Court has made its grab for power. The ques­ tion is: will we let them get away with it?4 This is a remarkably quiet period in the public life of the Constitution. It is not a quiet time for constitutional law profes­ sors, of course, for whom there is always a crisis around the bend, a radical departure from fundamental values afoot, a usurpation of rights lurking. And there is certainly a lot of activ­ ity related to constitutional law, from the recent impeachment of President Clinton to judicial intervention in the election of 2000 to the creation of military tribunals to try suspected terrorists and enemy combatants. It is a quiet period, however, in the sense that there is re­ markably little public agitation about either the meaning of the Constitution or about the federal judiciary.
    [Show full text]