Analyzing the Arguments in Hamdan V. Rumsfeld, No. 05-184

By Parrini, Michelle | Social Education, October 2006 | Go to article overview

Analyzing the Arguments in Hamdan V. Rumsfeld, No. 05-184


Parrini, Michelle, Social Education


Background

Briefs are written arguments filed with a court by the parties in a case, usually with the help of a lawyer. In the U.S. Supreme Court, the parties must first file briefs explaining why the Court should or should not review a lower court's judgment in the case. If the Court decides to grant review, the parties then file a second round of briefs, called "merit briefs." These briefs argue over the merits of the case itself. The merit briefs focus on the proper resolution of the questions of law that the Court has agreed to consider and fashion legal arguments based on precedent and logic.

Merit briefs follow a specific format. For one, they include a section describing a particular party's argument ("Summary of Argument").

For this activity, students will need the following pages from the merit briefs of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which are available from the ABA's Supreme Court Preview website [www.abanet.org/supremecourtpreview]:

* Petitioner's Brief (Salim Hamdan), "Summary of Argument," pp. 5-8.

* Respondent's Brief (Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense), "Summary of Argument," pp. 7-12.

Part One

Give students background about the case. Explain habeas corpus or a habeas appeal. Discuss how resolution of the questions presented by the case will clarify separation of powers between the president, Congress, and the courts. (See the accompanying article by Charles F. Williams for this background information.) Summarize the questions presented by the case:

1. Is the military commission established by the president to try the "petitioner" [Hamdan], and others similarly situated, for alleged war crimes in the War on Terror duly authorized under Congress's Authorization for the Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224; the Uniform Code of Military Justice; or the inherent powers of the president?

2. Can the petitioner, and others similarly situated, obtain judicial enforcement from a United States federal court of rights protected under the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War?

Part Two

Separate students into small groups. Ask half of the groups to analyze and prepare reports about the arguments in the "Summary of Argument" from the petitioner's merit brief [Hamdan], and the other half to analyze and prepare reports on the arguments from the respondent's [Rumsfeld]. Give each group its respective analysis questions to help guide the inquiries. Make sure that students have time to complete additional research on the terms in each brief that they will need to explain when reporting on the arguments.

Petitioner's Brief [Hamdan]: Questions for Analysis

* When in the past has the Supreme Court recognized military commissions? Under what circumstances?

* How has their jurisdiction been limited?

* When military commissions have been authorized, what kind of offenders have they tried, and what offenses have been considered?

* How are the military commissions in question unlawful, according to the petitioner?

* What does the petitioner argue about the applicability of the Geneva Convention to the situation presented by this case?

* In this case, in what areas does the petitioner challenge presidential assertion of power, and in what areas does the petitioner argue it has been exercised legitimately?

* What are the appropriate roles for the legislative branch in this situation, according to the petitioner?

(Note: Terms for further research are italicized. "GPW" in the petitioner's brief refers to the Third Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.)

Respondent's Brief [Rumsfeld]: Questions for Analysis

* What effect does the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 have on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in this case, according to the respondent?

* Where does the president get his authority to convene military commissions as argued in this brief? …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Analyzing the Arguments in Hamdan V. Rumsfeld, No. 05-184
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.