In 150 to 200 words, summarize, in your own words, one of the academic articles required for this discussion (from Section 5 of the assigned resources). Select an article from the list that you think may be a source for your final essay. Read it carefully and try to understand the author's main points that may be relevant to your final essay

  • In 150 to 200 words, summarize, in your own words, one of the academic articles required for this discussion (from Section 5 of the assigned resources). Select an article from the list that you think may be a source for your final essay. Read it carefully and try to understand the author’s main points that may be relevant to your final essay. First, give the full APA citation for the article. Then, summarize the relevant main points and explain the author’s reasoning as you understand it. At the end of your summary, ask one question about a specific point in the article that you do not understand and would like some help with (refer to a page number).
  • In 50 to 75 words, state what you believe the thesis of your Final Paper will be. State the thesis as clearly and fully as you can. Draw upon what you have learned from all the required resources you reviewed for this discussion. While you can change your mind about your thesis when you actually write the Final Paper, use this discussion forum as a serious opportunity to try out a thesis and receive feedback from your peers.
  • Assigned resources are:
  • choose one of the following academic articles from the Ashford University Library:

    a.

     

    Law and terror.

    Anderson, K. (2006, October/November). Law and terror.

     

    Policy Review, (139), 3-24. Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database.

    (This academic article argues that, in a time of war, the responsibility for balancing security and liberty lies with Congress acting jointly with the President – not with the President acting unilaterally. The author notes that the Supreme Court seems willing to lessen its role in protecting civil liberties when the two political branches agree on how to balance these potentially conflicting interests.)

    b.

     

    Clear statement rules and executive war powers.

    Bradley, C. (2010). Clear statement rules and executive war powers.

     

    Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 33(1), 1439-148. Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database.

    (This academic article analyzes the Supreme Court’s emphasis on clear congressional laws which either delegate to or withhold from the president extraordinary wartime powers, e.g., the power to detain “enemy combatants” without a court hearing during the war on terror.)

    c.

     

    Judging the next emergency: Judicial review and individual rights in times of crisis.

    Cole, D. (2003, August). Judging the next emergency: Judicial review and individual rights in times of crisis.

     

    Michigan Law Review, 101(8). 2565-2595. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost) database.

    (This academic article assesses judicial review of national security measures, explaining why courts are less activist on matters of national security, especially in times of crisis.)

    d.

     

    Subordination of powers: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

    Dealy, J. D. (2007). Subordination of powers:

     

    Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006). Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 30(3), 1071-1084. Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database.

    (This academic article critiques the Supreme Court’s post-9/11 habeas corpus decisions because they may subordinate the President to Congress in the exercise of executive authority to protect the nation.)

    e.

     

    Military tribunals: A sorry history.

    Fisher, L. (2003, September). Military tribunals: A sorry history.

     

    Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 484-508. Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database.

    (This academic article relates the Bush administration’s use of military tribunals with their use by F.D.R. during World War II to try saboteurs. The author notes that while the Supreme Court unanimously upheld Roosevelt’s tribunal, the history of such procedures shows them as hostile to civil liberties, due process, and basic standards of justice.)

    f.

     

    Guantanamo and beyond: Dangers of rigging the rules.

    Foley, B. (2007). Guantanamo and beyond: Dangers of rigging the rules.

     

    Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 97(4), 1009-10069. Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database.

    (This academic article critiques the post-9/11 practice of indefinitely detaining “enemy combatants” to incapacitate and interrogate them to uncover plans for terrorist attacks. The author critiques that practice as ineffective and counter-productive.)

    g.

     

    Terrorism, emergency powers, and the role of the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Katyal, N., Bongiovanni, G., & Valentini, C. (2007, December). Terrorism, emergency powers, and the role of the U.S. Supreme Court: An interview with Neal K. Katyal.

     

    Ratio Juris, 20(4), 443-455. Retrieved from Academic search Premier (EBSCOhost) database.

    (In this academic article, a lawyer who successfully argued a post-9/11 case before the Supreme Court discusses issues about separation of powers, the legitimacy of counter-terrorism laws, and anti-majoritarian issues posed by the judicial review.)

    h.

     

    The war against terror as war against the Constitution.

    Niday, J. (2008). The war against terror as war against the Constitution.

     

    Canadian Review of American Studies, 38(1), 101-117. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost) database.

    (This academic article analyzes ideological divisions on the Supreme Court in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision, which invalidated the Bush administration’s detention of “enemy combatants” without habeas corpus court hearing. In spite of the result in the case, the author questions whether the decision violates constitutionally protected civil liberties.)

    i.

     

    The unreviewable executive: Kiyemba, Maqaleh, and the Obama administration.

    Vladeck, S. (2010). The unreviewable executive:

     

    Kiyemba, Maqaleh, and the Obama administration. Constitutional Commentary, 26(3), 603-623. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost) database.

    (This academic article explains that arguments against judicial power in the detainee habeas corpus cases are arguments in favor of executive power and that deciding the merits of these cases should be left to the courts and not the president.)


PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER AND GET HELP FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER:)

Click the button below to order this paper AND ENJOY OUR DISCOUNT.

The post In 150 to 200 words, summarize, in your own words, one of the academic articles required for this discussion (from Section 5 of the assigned resources). Select an article from the list that you think may be a source for your final essay. Read it carefully and try to understand the author's main points that may be relevant to your final essay appeared first on Nonplagiarizedpapers.

I absolutely LOVE this essay writing service. This is perhaps the tenth time I am ordering from them, and they have not failed me not once! My research paper was of excellent quality, as always. You can order essays, discussion, article critique, coursework, projects, case study, term papers, research papers, reaction paper, movie review, research proposal, capstone project, speech/presentation, book report/review, annotated bibliography, and more.

Ask a Question. Get an Answer ASAP!

PLACE YOUR ORDER