The Constitutional Puzzle of Habeas Corpus

Edward A. Hartnett
{"title":"The Constitutional Puzzle of Habeas Corpus","authors":"Edward A. Hartnett","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.516882","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The U.S. Constitution has always protected habeas corpus. Yet when we consider the Suspension Clause together with three other constitutional principles, we find a constitutional puzzle. Pursuant to the Madisonian Compromise, inferior federal courts are constitutionally optional. Under Marbury v. Madison, Congress cannot expand the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond the bounds of Article III. Pursuant to Tarble's Case, state courts cannot issue writs of habeas corpus to determine the legality of federal custody. There would seem to be a violation of the Suspension Clause, however, if neither the inferior federal courts, the Supreme Court, nor the state courts could issue writs of habeas corpus. This Article suggests that the apparent conFLict among these constitutional principles can be resolved by the power of individual Justices of the Supreme Court to issue writs of habeas corpus.","PeriodicalId":80721,"journal":{"name":"Boston College law review. Boston College. Law School","volume":"46 1","pages":"251"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Boston College law review. Boston College. Law School","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.516882","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The U.S. Constitution has always protected habeas corpus. Yet when we consider the Suspension Clause together with three other constitutional principles, we find a constitutional puzzle. Pursuant to the Madisonian Compromise, inferior federal courts are constitutionally optional. Under Marbury v. Madison, Congress cannot expand the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond the bounds of Article III. Pursuant to Tarble's Case, state courts cannot issue writs of habeas corpus to determine the legality of federal custody. There would seem to be a violation of the Suspension Clause, however, if neither the inferior federal courts, the Supreme Court, nor the state courts could issue writs of habeas corpus. This Article suggests that the apparent conFLict among these constitutional principles can be resolved by the power of individual Justices of the Supreme Court to issue writs of habeas corpus.
人身保护令的宪法困惑
美国宪法一直保护人身保护令。然而,当我们将暂停条款与其他三个宪法原则一起考虑时,我们发现了一个宪法难题。根据麦迪逊妥协案,下级联邦法院在宪法上是可选的。在马布里诉麦迪逊案中,国会不能将最高法院原有的管辖权扩展到宪法第三条之外。根据塔布尔案,州法院不能签发人身保护令来确定联邦拘留的合法性。然而,如果下级联邦法院、最高法院和州法院都不能签发人身保护令,似乎就违反了暂停条款。本文认为,这些宪法原则之间的明显冲突可以通过最高法院法官个人签发人身保护令的权力来解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信