Answer each question below:
Consider that American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan frequently face similar situations all the time. Is it fair to compare the British of 1770 with the American service members deployed in those countries?
1) Is the Constitution a living, breathing document that should be interpreted in the context of the times or should the plain meaning of its words be interpreted as they were when the document was drafted?
The Supreme Court’s rationale with an eye towards identifying the critical elements for granting or denying constitutional protection. As you read each case, try to identify the material elements. Then see if the justices in those respective cases identify the same elements. What do you think of each case? Do these body of cases reinforce the edict that public policy is often defined by context not universal truth–if such a thing exists? Can these cases be reconciled intellectually?
Does Yoo’s characterization of the law and his justification for how the Bush Administration validated its detainee policies, as well as other GWOT policies, seem genuine or just circular lawyer doubletalk? Clearly, for the theory of Stare Decisis to have any meaning the use of prior case law as precedent must be considered when forming policy. Margulies identifies prior practice as another component to be considered when forming policy. In the context of detainees, he notes that the U.S. adhered to the tenets of the Geneva Conventions by bestowing POW status upon Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese combatants even though it didn’t have to. On page 79 of his book, Margulies discusses a combatant resolution/identification procedure used during the Vietnam War. Would it have been easy for President Bush to adopt such a procedure for the GWOT?