| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "HABEAS CORPUS CIVIL LIBERTY": |
|
|
Habeas Corpus - Civil Liberty or Civil Right, 2008.
An analysis of civil liberties and civil rights and which of them applies to habeas corpus.
3,137 words (approx. 12.5 pages), 15 sources, APA, £ 65.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the origins and history of habeas corpus, from its roots that predate the Magna Carta through to the present day, where it is being employed to the benefit of hundreds that wrongly languish in prison. The paper also explains the distinction between civil right and civil liberty and discusses which applies to habeas corpus. Lastly, the paper looks at the historic ups and downs of habeas corpus and discusses its unique place in the Constitution, separate from provisions contained in the Bill of Rights.
From the Paper
"Rights and liberties need to be at their strongest when public support is at its weakest. Civil rights are decreed by law, civil liberties are God given, and the actions of legislatures are inevitably governed by the politics of the time. Habeas corpus is a civil liberty included among the "self evident truths" of the Declaration of Independence, and alone one of the civil liberties that can be suspended by acts of the government during times of crisis. The president judged by history as one of the best, sought to suspend these liberties in time of extreme crisis in the nation's young history. It was circumvented to increase support during a world war, to intern "dangerous" citizens during another, and to grant due process rights to perpetrators of the war for the new millennium. It is now freeing hundred of wrongly convicted people of a crime. The future of habeas corpus is uncertain in the short term, but solid in the future as all inalienable rights bestowed upon the common man by his creator."
| |
|
Habeas Corpus, 2004.
Explores the history of Habeas Corpus.
5,893 words (approx. 23.6 pages), 12 sources, MLA, £ 100.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the history of Habeas Corpus and the role it plays in the law today. It looks at how the scope of Habeas Corpus has changed over time, what Habeas Corpus came to mean in English courts, and what it meant to the U.S. founding fathers when they included it in the Constitution. The paper then focuses on the history of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. by looking at how the Civil War, World War II, and Supreme Court rulings have affected and influenced its implementation. The paper also looks at limitations of Habeas Corpus and how Supreme Court rulings regarding Habeas Corpus have also affected the United States form of government.
Outline
The Start of Habeas Corpus
Early Beginnings
American Habeas Corpus
Habeas Corpus Act
Habeas Corpus
Habeas Corpus Defined
The Great Writ
Judiciary Act of 1789
Suspension of Habeas Corpus
Suspension by Lincoln
Testing the Issue
Seizing Power
After the Civil War
Resolution in 1924
Influence on World War II
Expansion in 1942
Abuse of the Writ
Total Exhaustion
1991 Decision
Limitations
Death Penalty and the Supreme Court
Effect on the Government
The Court?s Decision
California and HR 4167
Handling of Habeas Corpus Proceedings
California Habeas Corpus Resource Center
Requirements for Habeas Counsel
2255?s Original Purpose
Delay in Finality
Modern Day Sense
From the Paper
"Habeas corpus was first introduced in England in 1215 when the Magna Carta was written. When habeas corpus was first used, it had a limited range. Over time the scope expanded due to jurisdictional disputes between the superior courts and local courts of England. Habeas corpus cum causa was the form of habeas corpus used by the courts which ?compelled the sheriff to produce the prisoner who was the subject of the courts? jurisdictional dispute (Orye, law review).? A series of crucial cases which began with the Case of the Five Knights and concluded with the Chamber?s Case questioned the ?validity of commitments, previously an incidental effect of the writ, making it a major object (Orye, law review).?"
| |
|
President Lincoln and Habeas Corpus, 2004.
An overview of President Lincoln?s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War.
7,209 words (approx. 28.8 pages), 6 sources, MLA, £ 114.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines President Lincoln?s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus throughout the Civil War. Habeas corpus is the right not to be held or imprisoned without being charged and given a trial. It looks at how Lincoln suspended the right in varying degrees throughout the war and used as a way to protect the Union from insurgents within. It explores how some have charged Lincoln with dictatorship and circumventing the Constitution for doing this. The paper takes on the argument that Lincoln was acting justly and in the best interest of his country. The paper explains each act of suspension, outlines what caused the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, the Act that suspended the writ and what the stipulations were, and also what the outcome was. In addition, it examines the some arrests under the suspension, popular opinion, and the opinion of a Supreme Court judge. The thesis is that President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus for the good of the nation and to protect it from those who wished to do the government harm, and in doing so, held this nation together in its most trying time.
Outline
Lincoln Acts to Protect the Capitol
Getting a Hold on Suspending Habeas Corpus
The Policy Questioned
Lincoln Answers for His Actions
Expanding the Suspension
Congress Supports the President
Lincoln Defends His Policy
Habeas Corpus Suspended Nationwide
The Last Suspension Proclamation
From the Paper
"As the American Civil War began to come to a rolling boil President Lincoln was faced not only with rebels in the South but insurgents within the Union as well. There was no question how to deal with the rebels in the South who took up arms against the government. But those in the North who attacked their government in other ways were another, more difficult issue. One effective way to deal with these insurgents was to detain them for their own safety and for the safety of the nation. But many times this proved difficult because the insurgents could not be formally charged and without being formally charge the writ of habeas corpus allows them not to be detained."
| |
|
Habeas Corpus, 2004.
A discussion of Abraham Lincoln?s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
2,020 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 8 sources, MLA, £ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines Abraham Lincoln's actions regarding habeas corpus during the Civil War. The paper describes how Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus so that anti-Unionists might be summarily arrested. The paper presents various cases of arrests and imprisonments that occurred due to Lincoln's actions. Civil rights issues are discussed as are reactions to Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
From the Paper
"Abraham Lincoln?s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was considered by some to be the act of a traitor. Habeas corpus protects individuals from arbitrary imprisonment by the government and is for all intents and purposes, a right provided by the Constitution. Lincoln?s suspension raised questions about civil rights that ring familiar in light of the Patriot Act. While Lincoln defended his actions as preventative measures when the country was in a time of war, many individuals challenged his decision. In a historical context, Lincoln?s action was not a coup d??tat, but rather an act intended to prevent tension that existed within the country from growing out of control."
| |
|
Habeas Corpus, 2007.
An analysis of the implementation of habeas corpus in Australian law and its effect on issues such as asylum seekers and anti-terror legislation.
5,334 words (approx. 21.3 pages), 30 sources, APA, £ 93.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how the broader-brushstroke concepts of the Australian democratic system are more frequently becoming the subjects of debate and reform, particularly as the tenets of democracy are criticized by those who espouse extremist views. In particular, the paper discusses whether the fundamental remedy of habeas corpus can be effective in the face of arbitrary uses of executive power, particularly with reference to issues such as indefinite detention of asylum seekers and the introduction of new anti-terror legislation in Australia. Comparisons are also made with U.S., Canadian and British law.
Outline:
The Foundation and Source of Habeas Corpus
Historical United States Examples
Present Understandings of Habeas Corpus in Australia
Indefinite Detention and Habeas Corpus
Migration Act 1958 and Related Legislation
Tampa, Ruddock v Vardalis (VCCL v MIMA) and Lim's Case
Al-Khateb and Al Khafaji
Recent United States Cases
Recent Cases in the United Kingdom
Recent Cases in Canada
The Communist Party Case
Anti-Terror Legislation - Proposals and Motivations
Conclusions
From the Paper
"As predicted in 2001, the applicability of laws relating to mandatory detainees incarcerated indefinitely arose, and was tested by the High Court. In Al-Khateb and Al Khafaji the majority of the High Court concluded that, provided the Immigration Minister retained the intention of eventually deporting such people, the detention would be valid even if it was potentially indefinite. Whilst it was determined that, people who do not necessarily pose any danger to the community and have committed no crime - 'unlawful non-citizens' kept in immigration detention indefinitely was not unconstitutional. There is some prospect of future cases overturning this, due to the sharp division in substantive reasons by judges. "
| |
|
"Habeas Corpus", 2005.
A review of Alan Bennett's "Habeas Corpus".
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 1 source, £ 18.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper reviews the play "Habeas Corpus" by British playwright Alan Bennett. This two acts play, written in 1973 and set in the 1960s explores homosexuality.
| |
|
"Habeas Corpus", 2005.
A theatrical review of the play "Habeas Corpus" by Alan Bennett.
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 1 source, £ 18.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses "Habeas Corpus", a comedy written in the early 1970s by a British playwright Alan Bennett. The play is set in the 1960s Britain, the era of sexual revolution and turmoil in society. The play is set up in a typical British town in the 1960s. The paper analyzes how, on the surface it is a farce about sexual relations, and when it was first shown in the early 1970s, it must have been somewhat daring, even scandalous.
| |
|
Individual Liberty, 2002.
This paper discusses individual liberty as analyzed in John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty".
1,460 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 1 source, MLA, £ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
An examination of individual liberty in John Stuart Mill's controversial essay, "On Liberty". In investigating this topic, the author looks at Mill's argument, the context of individual liberty in human history, the retention of elements in John Stuart Mill's philosophy and their practicability and democratic tyranny against individual liberty.
From the Paper
"One of the prime spokesperson of liberalism in the 19th century, John Stuart Mill was a supporter of Utilitarianism in moral principles. He was specifically of the view that every individual in a society should perform his role in such a manner that he progresses maximum happiness for the majority of the people. Despite his belief in collective welfare, Stuart Mill was a strong advocate of individual liberty and rights. However, the simultaneous elements of individual liberty as well as the social well being in Stuart Mill?s philosophy are considered controversial by most. Apart from this, he also promoted rights and liberty for women.
On Liberty was the most controversial essay of John Stuart Mill?s works, stimulating much vehement manifestation of consent and censure. The composition was incited by the conversation between Mill and Harriet Taylor, his wife, in their letters on the subject that they lived in a society that was moving towards dearth of intrepid and gallant individuals."
| |
|
"On Liberty", 2001.
This paper studies liberty in the eyes of the government, the individual and society by analyzing John Stuart Mills' book "On Liberty".
1,730 words (approx. 6.9 pages), 1 source, MLA, £ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper studies John Stuart Mill?s concept of liberty which is stated in his book "On Liberty". This paper endeavours to define exactly what Mills? notion of liberty is and how it should be regulated.The main discrepancies of his theory are highlighted so as to demonstrate the apparent contradiction between his ideology and the examples he chooses to showcase his theory in its application. This paper concludes that his approach seems to be liberal but ends up with a distinctly ?non-liberal? feel.
From the Paper
"Mill defines liberty (civil or social) as ?the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.? (Chapter I - Introductory; 1) The obvious wielder of this power Mill identified to be the government. However the government can be controlled or checked in turn since they are still held accountable to the people. Mill recognized another wielder of this control over the individual, the ?society? in question that exercises this power over the individual is the majority or those considered to be the majority. However, unlike the government, which is held accountable to the people, the majority does not have those checks. Mill states that in many instances the ruling majority is not always the same people who have this power exercised on them. The majority may even wish to dominate a part of the population. Therefore, there would still need to be a limitation placed on this ruling majority. (Chapter I - Introductory; 4)"
| |
|
"On Liberty", 2006.
A paper discussing limitations of liberty in John Stewart Mill's "On Liberty."
1,016 words (approx. 4.1 pages), 9 sources, APA, £ 25.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discussed Mill's treatise "On Liberty," and defines Mill's concept of liberty. According to the paper, Mill advocates complete freedom and non-interference of government in most cases. The paper explains that Mill only advocates limiting freedoms where actions of one individual can harm another individual.
From the Paper
"In his foundational treatise on the notion of liberty, John Stuart Mill opened a Pandora's Box for debate about the nature and limitations of liberty. His defense of the fundamental democratic ideal forces scholars into two camps: the first heralds the writer as the true defender of freedom and civil liberty, the others arguing that his service was as no great defender, but instead as the consistent utilitarian. Steadily the political son of Tocqueville, Mill's 1859 disquisition was immediately noted for its justification of the freedom of the individual in the face of a state imposition of control, from its inception a classic libertarian premise. However, Mill's idea of liberty was not boundless; while the first danger to liberty, he argued, is the threat of state control, its second danger is that to which most democracies are known, the 'tyranny of the majority.'"
| |
|
"On Liberty", 2002.
An analysis of the complexities of the Principle of Liberty in J.S. Mills' "On Liberty".
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 1 source, £ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay will argue that while problems clearly exist with J.S. Mill's Principle of Liberty, specifically with respect to the defining the boundaries between the private and the public sphere of control, it remains one of the fundamental basis of the philosophy of human liberty in Western civilization.
| |
|
Liberty, 2002.
The concept of liberty in relationship to several philosophers.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, £ 25.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the concept of liberty with respect to the works of Locke, Rousseau, and Marx. The author compares their concepts of liberty and compares and contrasts negative liberty to positive liberty.
| |
|
Poetry and the Statue of Liberty, 2004.
An analysis of three different poems about the Statue of Liberty and the freedom it represents.
2,891 words (approx. 11.6 pages), 5 sources, MLA, £ 60.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how the Statue of Liberty, originally intended to represent the idea of liberty and self-rule for all people in all countries, over the years has represented political liberty, individual freedom, and an example of an immigration policy gone wrong. It looks at how three different poets have expressed all three views of the Statue of Liberty in poems, all using the statue as an icon or symbol of the meaning of ?liberty? the statue held for them. The poems reviewed are Emma Lazarus's "The New Colossus", ?The Bartholdi Statue? by John Greenleaf Whittier, and "Unguarded Gates" by Thomas Bailey Aldrich.
From the Paper
"In 1892, the United States built a receiving facility for new immigrants on an island next to the one holding the Statue of Liberty (NPS). Ellis Island was the entrance point for nearly all new immigrants to the United States. With the Statue of Liberty overlooking the facility, the statue became a cultural icon representing immigration to the United States. Many immigrant Americans developed great affection for the statue. In fact, however, Lazarus?s poem honoring the Statue of Liberty didn?t get much attention until her death. A group of people organized to raise money to put the statue on a pedestal. One person on that committee, Georgina Schuyler (U of V), came across Lazarus? poem."
| |
|
Liberty Vs. Utility in Mill's Work, 2005.
This paper compares liberty and utility in the works of John Stuart Mill.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 2 sources, £ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper, two of John Stuart Mill's seminal works are discussed, these being 'On Liberty' and 'Utilitariansm'. The point of this discussion is to decide whether Mill's vision of liberty takes a subservient role to that of utility, the Greatest Happiness Principle. The paper first takes a look at the problems of each papers. Then it contrasts liberty against pleasure, deciding that liberty DOES take a backseat to happiness and utility.
From the Paper
"It has always struck me as odd, when talking with fellow students of philosophy, that many of them view John Stuart Mill as some shiller of sleaze, his doctrine of Utility and Greatest Happiness completely libertine, especially when compared to the immovable, tucked-under-the-covers prudishness of his contemporary ethicist Immanuel Kant. Yet, in two of his seminal works, On Liberty and Utilitarianism, Mill shows that liberty is not the end all and be all of his beliefs. Instead, liberty is more of a tool, an enhancer, of his overarching principle of utility. In the opening remarks of Utilitarianism, Mill makes this statement: 'All action is for the sake of some end, and rules of action, it seems natural to suppose, must take their whole character and color from the end to which they are subservient'."
|
|
|
