<i>Hedges</i> Amicus Briefs! Get Yer <i>Hedges</i> Amicus Briefs!
A bunch of amicus briefs filed in Hedges---and a lot of red meat for NDAA-haters from that special libertarian land where Left and Right meet.
Here's the Rutherford Institute, which argues that "The National Defense Authorization Act, . .
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
A bunch of amicus briefs filed in Hedges---and a lot of red meat for NDAA-haters from that special libertarian land where Left and Right meet.
Here's the Rutherford Institute, which argues that "The National Defense Authorization Act, . . ., if upheld, presents us with a grave constitutional crisis."
Here's the Government Accountability Project, arguing that "Without definitional parameters [for NDAA detention authority], whistleblowers face unprecedented risks when disclosing even unclassified documents."
[caption id="" align="alignright" width="101"]
Fred Korematsu[/caption]
Here are the children of Fred Korematsu and other Japanese Americans who challenged the World War II-era internment, arguing that "The threshold issue here is whether this Court will exactingly review the government’s legal and factual defense of the NDAA’s indefinite detention provision, as Judge Forrest did, or will instead uncritically defer to the government’s position, as the Court did in the internment cases." Bet you can guess which course they urge.
Here's the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, defending the Bill of Rights by arguing that "Because the government has effectively sidelined the courts from substantively reviewing its detention authority, individuals subject to military detention face a stark choice: pre-enforcement review or no review at all. In light of that reality, this Court should not turn a blind eye to Plaintiffs’ claims."
And last but certainly not least, here's a long list of individual conservative legislators and organizations, arguing that "In this case, the executive branch is arguing on behalf of the legislative branch that the judicial branch may not even look into the Constitution to determine if Section 1021(b)(2) violates First and Fifth Amendments. As Chief Justice Marshall responded in Marbury, the Government’s claim is 'too extravagant to be maintained.'"
Well, I disagree with all of them, but there it is.
Fred Korematsu[/caption]
Here are the children of Fred Korematsu and other Japanese Americans who challenged the World War II-era internment, arguing that "The threshold issue here is whether this Court will exactingly review the government’s legal and factual defense of the NDAA’s indefinite detention provision, as Judge Forrest did, or will instead uncritically defer to the government’s position, as the Court did in the internment cases." Bet you can guess which course they urge.
Here's the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, defending the Bill of Rights by arguing that "Because the government has effectively sidelined the courts from substantively reviewing its detention authority, individuals subject to military detention face a stark choice: pre-enforcement review or no review at all. In light of that reality, this Court should not turn a blind eye to Plaintiffs’ claims."
And last but certainly not least, here's a long list of individual conservative legislators and organizations, arguing that "In this case, the executive branch is arguing on behalf of the legislative branch that the judicial branch may not even look into the Constitution to determine if Section 1021(b)(2) violates First and Fifth Amendments. As Chief Justice Marshall responded in Marbury, the Government’s claim is 'too extravagant to be maintained.'"
Well, I disagree with all of them, but there it is.
Benjamin Wittes is editor in chief of Lawfare and a Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of several books.
