Guantanamo and the Constitution

In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that although the United States doesn’t hold total sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay, “enemy combatant” detainees are still entitled to some constitutional protections. In 2006, the Military Commissions Act allowed detainees to file only against their status as enemy combatants to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, prohibiting them from submitting habeas petitions for release. In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees should have the right to challenge their imprisonment through habeas corpus petitions.

This past May, President Obama was lauded by many human rights activists for signing an executive order for the closing of Guantanamo Bay Prison by January 22, 2010. However, others expressed concerns regarding complications surrounding the relocation of prisoners and thorough reviews of each detainee. For very different reasons some members of Congress and civil liberties groups both object to proposals that would relocate the detainees to American prisons.

Italy’s recent willingness to accept three prisoners is another step forward to closing down the Guantanamo Bay prison. Last week, an agreement secured with the European Union included propositions for European countries to accept former prisoners on a case-by-case basis.

TEACHING WITH THE CONSTITUTION
Remind your students to highlight and click on the text of the Constitution to read Linda Monk's commentary.

Have your students read Article I section 9 clause 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Discuss habeas corpus. Ask your students if habeas protections should apply to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay Prison.

Have your students read the Eighth Amendment. Discuss cruel and unusual punishment. Ask your students if the detainees at Guantanamo should have this constitutional protection.

Have your students read Article III section 2 clause 2 and Article II section 2 clause 1. Ask your students if the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the prison and detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

The Power of Images, Presidents & the Press

“The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals. In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.”

- President Obama on reversing his decision to release detainee abuse images

“The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law, to revive our moral standing in the world and to lead a transparent government.”
- Anthony Romero, executive director of the A.C.L.U., on the president’s decision to bar the release of detainee abuse images

Images from wars have long played into domestic and international politics, most notably during the Vietnam War, which was dubbed the "living room war" for its extensive television coverage. Images from wars have been used to solidify anti-war movements and fan the flames of patriotism.

President George H.W. Bush's administration imposed a ban on media coverage of returning flag-draped coffins during the Gulf War in 1991. In 2000 President Clinton allowed photographs of coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base bearing the remains of military personnel killed in the bombing of the USS Cole to be distributed to the media. Under President George W. Bush an image of the transfer at Dover of the remains of a victim of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon on September 11 was published.

But images of flag draped coffins from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were prohibited during George W. Bush’s administration. Images depicting detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison were made public in 2004, but they were not officially released by the U.S. government at that time. President Obama, who reversed the ban on media coverage of returning flag-draped coffins, initially said that he would release images depicting U.S. military personnel abusing captives. He has reversed his previous decision and has decided to attempt to block their release.

Teaching with the Constitution

Remind your students to highlight and click on the text of the Constitution to read Linda Monk's commentary.

Ask your students to read Article II section 2 and then read the 1st Amendment. Ask them, does the press have a right to publish these images if they are not top secret. Ask them if they believe the president has the authority, as Commander in Chief, to block the release of these images.

Ask them what types of images from war should or should not be relapsed to the public and the reasons for their answers. Then ask them why did the framers of the Constitution think it necessary to have a free and independent press in a democracy.

EPA Regulation vs. Congressional Legislation

Many believe that Congress is poised to create legislation to cap the amount of carbon dioxide that cars, power plants and other manufacturers can release into the atmosphere. EPA has signaled that it is ready to place regulatory controls on any emissions of heat-trapping gases by private citizens, small businesses or large corporations. Congressional legislation to limit carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases would supplant the EPA’s new regulatory plan and guide how environmental protections were implemented.

Strange Bedfellows
Environmentalists and industries that rely on fossil fuels both support Congressional legislation over EPA regulation. Legislation would preclude another presidential administration from ignoring federal court decisions (i.e., Massachusetts v. EPA) or regulatory regimes. Industry also believes that legislation will be less restrictive and more flexible than being monitored and regulated by EPA.

EPA regulation has, in the past, been confined to pollutants that do damage on a regional level, like nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbons and not pollutants on an international level, like carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping gases. The Clean Air Act, therefore, may not be sufficient to deal with the believed man-made causes of global climate change.

Teaching with the Constitution
Ask your students determine how federal legislation determines the scope and amount of power an executive agency has by reading Article I section 8, clause 3 and Article I section 8, clause 18 of the Constitution.

Ask your students to determine if the president must obey a Supreme Court decision by reading Article III and Article II of the Constitution and then reading about the Marbury v. Madison decision, which hinged on whether the president would defy the Supreme Court's decision.

Ask your students to join the conversation about global climate change and the Constitution at The Exchange online community.

High Court Update

The opening of the 111th Congress and the election of a new president has generated a lot of media attention and both seem to be working away, but what about the third branch of our federal government the Supreme Court?

The Court is half-way through the term for the year, and still has a number of cases left to be argued and decided. Although all the cases will have an impact, we have picked out three we think will be especially interesting for your students:

Safford United School District #1 v. Redding
Does a public school have a right to strip search a student who is suspected of possessing or selling drugs? The Court will be revisiting their landmark decision in TLO v. New Jersey. This new case, again examines students Fourth Amendment rights in public schools. You can help your students understand this issue during a field trip to the Center by seeing our theater production, The Living News and using the accompanying teaching materials. If you can’t make it to Philadelphia, check out the Exchange program on the balance of student rights and school safety.

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Mukasey
To continue the excitement of the election this past fall your students can examine this case which will generate conversation about the “continuing problem of racial discrimination in voting.” This case calls into question the Voting Rights Act of 2006 a reauthorization of the original 1965 law designed to strike down Jim Crow era voting rights restrictions based on race. Have you students play Seize the Vote, the Center’ interactive game to examine the history of voting rights in the United States.

District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne
For the CSI fans in your classroom, this case asks the question: Does a defendant have access to DNA evidence after a conviction? This case looks at the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, if you are a science teacher this is the case for you, download the podcast of Choices and Challenges in the New Age of Life Sciences a conversation hosted by Center.