Essay
Within the past few years, the Supreme Court has ruled on a number of challenges to claim made by the administration of George W. Bush that it had the power to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens held as "enemy combatants"; and to detain indefinitely and try by military tribunal, without and with limited appeal, foreign nationals who had been seized on battlefields and held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These cases-Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), Rasul v. Bush (2004), Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), and Boumediene v. Bush (2008)-illustrate well the basic constitutional dilemma in enforcing constraints on presidential power to wage war. Focusing primarily on the last two cases, discuss the Court's conclusions, explaining the applicable presidential directives, laws, treaties, writs, and precedents. To what extent do these cases demonstrate that restraints on presidential power to wage war remain in the hands of Congress?
Correct Answer:

Answered by ExamLex AI
In the cases of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006...View Answer
Unlock this answer now
Get Access to more Verified Answers free of charge
Correct Answer:
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
Unlock this answer now
Get Access to more Verified Answers free of charge
Q8: In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v.
Q9: "Inter arma silent leges" means _.<br>A) in
Q10: To what degree does Boumediene v. Bush
Q11: With respect to judicial oversight of executive
Q12: In _ Justice Scalia wrote that "America
Q14: The Patriot Act became law became law
Q15: In New York Times Co. v. United
Q16: In United States v. United States District
Q17: On the day that the Court released
Q18: In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v.