Assignment:
Part 1
September 11, 2001 is a day that no one in America will forget. I can still remember where I was, at the time, what I was doing, and how I reacted to it. September 11, 2001 will always be remembered as 9/11. This is the day that terrorist attacked America, on American soil. Terrorist hijacked 4 airplanes attacking the twin towers in New York, the pentagon, one was crashed in Pennsylvania. There were several people killed and injured, but America as a hole was wounded (Costly, 2019 para1).
Not long after 9/11, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, went to congress with several options to combat terrorism. Many of them was omitted by congress because they infringed on citizens rights, but they did approve the USA Patriot Act. The USA Patriot Act stands for United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools, that will Intersect and Obstruct Terrorism (Costly, 2019).
The day after the Patriot Act was implemented, the House of Representatives passed a bill called 357-66. 357-66 is a bill that is 357 pages long and changed over 15 laws. In 2005, President George W. Bush approved surveillance of cell phone and monitor all emails. President Bush decision did not go over well with many people in America, they felt their civil liberties was being violated (Doherty, 2014).
The U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 made it where the government had to have a warrant to search someone's property, so when President Bush made that decision, it made many U.S. citizens feel their liberties were violated. Then there was NSL's (National Security Letters). The NSL's allowed the government to access people "suspected" of terrorisms phone records, and the electronic communication (Doherty).
Part 2
Discussion
The landscape of National Security definitely changed after the attacks of 9/11. The war on terror and the way it was covered by the national media helped to put the nation into a state of near panic. Both political parties were looking for ways to increase ways to gain intelligence A domestically they are hampered by the constitution. The patriot act enables the government to wiretap its own citizens without a warrant signed by a judge if it is believed it is in the best interest of national security. Ailong with the creation of the TSA and the increased regulations that come with flying commercially, there are numerous ways that our government has slowly took away more civil liberties. There is good argument that it has helped make our country a safer place because there have been multiple attempted terrorist attacks stopped before anyone was hurt.
The civil liberties aren't the only ones being stripped as the war on terror has also led to increased use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" or what some people call torture. While there is an argument that it has been gained to get information that has protected the country it is hard to look at some of the footage if you are a human being. There are two schools of thought, the more conservative, which include President Bush.
"The overall message of Bush's argument is that torture is necessary in this new war. If we want to protect national security, we must torture detainees to gain intelligence that could be used to prevent an attack. By framing national security in conflict with the prohibition against torture, Bush justifies violations of basic rights in exchange for national security." (Schofer, 2015). The other school of thought is the more liberal view that just because someone is suspected of an act of terror doesn't mean that their civil liberties and human rights need to be violated to get answers. I have always thought that if it is going to save thousands of lives than go ahead and use the enhanced techniques but after reading a lot on the patriot act my views are changing somewhat.
Part 3
Discussion
The U.S. Supreme Court only considers cases that at least four of the nine judges grant parties a Writ of Certiorari. "Certiorari" is a Latin word meaning "to inform. A writ of certiorari informs a lower court of the Supreme Court's intention to review one of its decisions" (Spohn & Hemmens, 2012). People that want to appeal a lower court ruling they must file a petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court. If four judges vote to grant the writ of certiorari then the case will be heard. If four judges vote no to the writ of certiorari, the case will not be heard and the lower court's decision stands. The Supreme Court by granting the writ of certiorari is agreeing that case is important a must be heard. Most of the time these cases involve a constitutional issue.
However, The Supreme Court believes that when this decision is made they find that the lower courts are quite capable of ruling a case. But if the Supreme Court decides to hear a case it could uphold the lower court ruling it could establish a precedent for future cases and challenge local and state laws across the country.
In my opinion, because the Supreme Court term begins on the first Monday of October and ends on the first Monday of October the following year and in that time well over 7,000 cases will be filed. It's safe to say that's asking for too much as the Supreme Court only hears about 80 of those case in that span of time. I don't believe the Supreme Court should hear more cases because of the precedence of the cases and especially because these cases they decide on could possibly overturn other case or shed new light on issues dealing with the constitution. With that the increased volume of cases the Supreme Court wouldn't be able to give a tactful verdict as they could as if they didn't.
Part 4
1. Which cases must the Supreme Court review, and which cases do they have discretion on whether or not to render an opinion?
2. What is the court's discretionary jurisdiction called?