Military, War, and Peace Commons^™

A Republic, If You Can Keep It, Daniel N. Hoffman

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Undeclared War: Twilight Zone of Constitutional Power by Edward Keynes and The War-Making Powers of the President: Constitutional and International Law Aspects by Ann Van Wynen Thomas and A.J. Thomas, Jr.

The Consultation Clause Of The 1973 War Powers Resolution, Laurence D. Pierce

Antioch Law Journal

In 1973, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution.' The purpose of the Resolution was "to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances .... 2 Part I of this comment examines the legislative evolution of the consultation clause to ascertain the intent of those congressional members who drafted and ratified the War Powers Resolution. Part II …

Coast Guard Nighttime Boardings And The Fourth Amendment: United States V. Piner, D. Gary Beck

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Broadening Of The Pentagon Papers Standard: An Impermissible Misapplication Of The National Security Exception To The Prior Restraint Doctrine, Sherrie L. Bennett

Seattle University Law Review

This comment examines the history of the national security exception to the prior restraint rule and discusses the elements of the Pentagon Papers standard in the context of the Marchetti and Progressive opinions. Application of those elements to the reasoning of the cases demonstrates the failure of these lower courts to follow the Supreme Court's strict view of when restraint is justified. Examining the theoretical basis underlying the first amendment, the comment concludes that strict application of the Pentagon Papers standard is essential to continuing protection of the American people's right to be informed of government activities.

The National Executive And The Use Of The Armed Forces Abroad, John Norton Moore

International Law Studies

No abstract provided.

Destroyers For Naval Bases: Highlights Of An Unprecedented Trade, William H. Langenberg

International Law Studies

No abstract provided.

Recent Cases, James H. Lokey, Jr., Stephen D. Goodwin, Charles L. Jarik

Vanderbilt Law Review

Constitutional Law--Criminal Procedure-Circuits Split over Application of Stone v. Powell's "Opportunity for Full and Fair Litigation"

James H. Lokey, Jr.

In Stone v. Powell,' the third 1976 decision, the Supreme Court made a limited but distinct break with precedent. Stone held that a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search and seizure was introduced at his trial as long as the state has provided an "opportunity for full and fair litigation" of his fourth amendment claim." The Court, as noted previously, did not define what kind of "opportunity" …

Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. V. United States, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

A Rejoinder, David E. Engdahl

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Civil Disturbance Regulations: Threats Old And New, Dominic J. Campisi

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Schlesinger V. Ballard, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

A Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel Under Article 15 Of The Uniform Code Of Military Justice, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) enables a commanding officer to sentence a service member who has committed a minor infraction to thirty days of correctional custody. The article 15 proceeding offers few procedural safeguards; among the protections lacking is the right to counsel. This Note will consider whether the failure of the military to provide counsel at an article 15 proceeding is consistent with the sixth amendment, which provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." The Note first will discuss …

Constitutional Law, Various Editors

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Laird V. Tatum: The Supreme Court And A First Amendment Challenge To Military Surveillance Of Lawful Civilian Political Activity, Ralph Michael Stein

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This Comment will explore the salient issues raised by Laird v. Tatum and will attempt to answer the following questions: Did the Supreme Court err in denying the political activists an opportunity to present witnesses at a District Court hearing and in deciding the issues on the original papers and appellate brief? Was the Military Intelligence (hereinafter MI) program complained of an impermissible abridgment of First Amendment rights? Did Justice Rehnquist behave improperly by participating in the Laird v. Tatum decision? Last, to what extent has the Supreme Court's decision in this case affected future adjudication of First Amendment class …

Struck V. Secretary Of Defense, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Frontiero V. Richardson, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

The Case For An Unconditional, Universal Amnesty For Draft Evaders And Armed Forces Deserters, William D. Wick

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Intrusion Into The Body, William G. Eckhardt

Faculty Works

The thesis of this article is that the rights of servicemen should be protected with the search and seizure concepts of the fourth amendment rather than with the fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination when intrusive bodily searches are required. The Supreme Court enunciated standard for intrusion into the body found in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966). The subsequent application of this standard in the federal courts, and its adoption in the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969, (Rev.) are explored. Federal court decisions discussing the privilege against self-incrimination are contrasted with opinions of the Court of Military Appeals …

All Or Nothing At All: The Defeat Of Selective Conscientious Objection, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

The generosity of the United States Supreme Court to conscientious objectors whom Congress has declined to exempt from military service has apparently ended. In Gillette v. United States, decided with Negre v. Larsen, the Court decisively closed the door on claims that those conscientiously opposed to participation in particular wars are entitled by statute or constitutional right to an exemption from military service. Mr. Justice Marshall's majority opinion first disposes of the statutory claim. According to the opinion, the relevant language of § 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967," conscientiously opposed to participation in war …

Can Balance Be Restored In The Constitutional War Powers Of The President And Congress?, William B. Spong Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

The Cambodian incursion of April, 1970, brought forth renewed observations from constitutional scholars, eminent and amateur, that the war-making power of Congress had been eroded and the checks and balances system for the initiation and conduct of hostilities by American troops, as contemplated by the Founding Fathers, rendered almost inoperative. Debates on the National Commitments Resolution and the Cooper-Church Amendments, as well as events following adoption of these measures, appear to sustain such conclusions. How has this happened? What, if anything, can be done to restore some balance in this crucial area of public policy? Should there be an effort …

Constitutional Law--Armed Forces--Living In Two Worlds, William Robert Wooton

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—The Serviceman’S Right To A Civilian Trial For A Non-Service Connected Crime, Bruce R. Fenwick

Buffalo Law Review

O'Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258 (1969).

O'Callahan And Its Progeny: A Survey Of Their Impact On The Jurisdiction Of Courts-Martial, John F. Depue

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Massachusetts In The Federal Courts: The Constitutionality Of The Vietnam War, Anthony A. D'Amato

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

One of the most singular pieces of legislation in American constitutional history passed both houses of the Massachusetts legislature on April 1st, 1970, and was signed into law on the following day by Governor Francis W. Sargent. It provides that, except for an emergency, no inhabitant of Massachusetts inducted into or serving in the armed forces "shall be required to serve" abroad in an armed hostility that has not been declared a war by Congress under Article 1, Section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution. The bill further directs the state's attorney general to bring a suit testing …

Cafeteria Workers Revisited: Does The Commander Have Plenary Power To Control Access To His Base?, Jethro K. Lieberman

Articles & Chapters

The Supreme Court's decision in Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy (1961) has often been cited by military commanders to support claimed plenary power over access to the installation commanded. Observing that plenary power is a rarity in contemporary society, Lieutenant Lieberman questions the prof erred interpretation of Cafeteria Workers particularly in light of more recent decisions. He concludes that while commanders do possess broad powers over access, the power is not plenary but must be weighed in each instance against the individual's rights of freedom of speech and association.

Cafeteria Workers Revisited: Does The Commander Have Plenary Power To Control Access To His Base?, Jethro K. Lieberman

Articles & Chapters

The Supreme Court's decision in Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy (1961) has often been cited by military commanders to support claimed plenary power over access to the installation commanded. Observing that plenary power is a rarity in contemporary society, Lieutenant Lieberman questions the prof erred interpretation of Cafeteria Workers particularly in light of more recent decisions. He concludes that while commanders do possess broad powers over access, the power is not plenary but must be weighed in each instance against the individual's rights of freedom of speech and association.

Conscription And The Constitution: The Original Understanding, Leon Friedman

Michigan Law Review

The general words of the Constitution-famous phrases such as "due process," "freedom of speech," "interstate commerce," and "raise and support armies"-are not self-evident concepts. As Justice Frankfurter said, "The language of the [Constitution] is to be read not as barren words found in a dictionary but as symbols of historic experience illumined by the presuppositions of those who employed them. Not what words did Madison and Hamilton use, but what was it in their minds which they conveyed?" While the framers obviously could not have foreseen the discovery of electromagnetic radio waves or atomic energy, and had no "intent" concerning …

The Conscientious Objector Exemption As An Establishment And An Accommodation Of Religion, Raymond B. Marcin

Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

Constitutional And Statutory Bases Of Governors' Emergency Powers, F. David Trickey

Michigan Law Review

The primary source of executive emergency power is the state constitution, although statutes often codify the constitutional executive emergency authority and occasionally delegate additional legislative police powers to the governor. Most governors are authorized to respond to public emergencies with a variety of extraordinary emergency measures. This study of state constitutional and statutory emergency power provisions has been undertaken in an attempt to evaluate the sources and scope of governors' emergency powers, as well as the limitations upon those powers. Its primary focus will be upon the extreme breadth of executive emergency authority and, in particular, upon the power to …

Appointment Of Non-Lawyer Counsel In Courts-Martial Does Not Violate The Fifth Or Sixth Amendment--United States V. Culp, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Defendant, a Marine Corps private, was charged with larceny, and naval officers who were not lawyers were appointed as trial and defense counsel. The accused pleaded guilty to six specifications of larceny, and, upon trial by a special court-martial, was given a bad conduct discharge from the service. The board of review, on its own motion, held the guilty plea improvident and stated that, under the sixth amendment, the accused was entitled to counsel qualified in the law unless he had intelligently waived this right. Upon certification by the Judge Advocate General of the Navy to the Court of Military …