Thanks to Jesse Choper and John Yoo for a great debate on War and the Federal Courts on April 5.
A podcast recording of the debate can be found at the Federalist Society's national website here.
A link to Choper and Yoo's joint article "Wartime Process: A Dialogue on Congressional Power to Remove Issues from the Federal Courts," to be published in the May 2007 issue of the California Law Review, can be found here. Free registration is required for access to this informative article.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Monday, April 02, 2007
April 5 - Professors Yoo and Choper debate the Military Commissions Act
The San Francisco Chapter of the Federalist Society is hosting a debate on the Military Commissions Act on Thursday, April 5 at 5:45 pm at the Bankers' Club, 555 California Street (B of A Building), 52nd Floor, San Francisco. It is free for members and students; $10 for non-members.
This event is a must for those who wish to be better informed about the legal issues involved in the War on Terror, the role (if any) of federal courts in the detention and punishment of suspects in that war, and the legal status of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Professors John Yoo and Jesse Choper of Boalt Hall will debate whether Congress’s enactment of the Military Commissions Act, which overruled the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, is constitutional. Professor Yoo argues that Congress was fully in its rights because Hamdan incorrectly concluded that the federal courts have the authority to hear habeas corpus claims from enemy combatants held outside the United States. Professor Choper takes the opposite view because he believes important structural and individual liberty provisions of the Constitution requires that the courts hear claims challenging the legality of mistaken detentions in war.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan can be found here. The 2-1 opinion of the D.C. Circuit in February 2007 upholding the constitutionality of the MCA can be found here.
The text of the Military Commissions Act divesting federal courts from hearing petitions for writs of habeas corpus from alien detainees provides:
"No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."
This event is a must for those who wish to be better informed about the legal issues involved in the War on Terror, the role (if any) of federal courts in the detention and punishment of suspects in that war, and the legal status of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Professors John Yoo and Jesse Choper of Boalt Hall will debate whether Congress’s enactment of the Military Commissions Act, which overruled the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, is constitutional. Professor Yoo argues that Congress was fully in its rights because Hamdan incorrectly concluded that the federal courts have the authority to hear habeas corpus claims from enemy combatants held outside the United States. Professor Choper takes the opposite view because he believes important structural and individual liberty provisions of the Constitution requires that the courts hear claims challenging the legality of mistaken detentions in war.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan can be found here. The 2-1 opinion of the D.C. Circuit in February 2007 upholding the constitutionality of the MCA can be found here.
The text of the Military Commissions Act divesting federal courts from hearing petitions for writs of habeas corpus from alien detainees provides:
"No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)