Summarize In Your Own Words One Of The Academic Articles

Summarize, in your own words, one of the academic articles required for this discussion

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. 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). 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). d. Subordination of powers: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Dealy, J. D. (2007). Subordination of powers: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct.). Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 30(3). e. Military tribunals: A sorry history. Fisher, L. (2003, September). Military tribunals: A sorry history. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33(3). 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). 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). 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). 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).

Paper For Above instruction

Anderson (2006) examines the delicate balance between security measures and civil liberties during wartime, emphasizing the roles of Congress and the President. The article argues that constitutional responsibility for balancing security and liberty should primarily lie with Congress, acting jointly with the President, rather than with the President unilaterally. Anderson contends that the Supreme Court appears willing to reduce its oversight role in civil liberties when Congress and the President align their interests. The author reasons that a joint legislative-executive approach ensures a more balanced and democratic response to threats, preventing excesses by any single branch. Anderson references historical examples and recent policies to illustrate how unilateral executive actions can threaten civil liberties. A key point is that a cohesive, bipartisan approach provides better accountability and safeguards constitutional rights. The article's main insight is the importance of maintaining judicial vigilance and the constitutional separation of powers in times of national security crises. The author’s reasoning highlights the potential dangers of unchecked presidential power and underscores the need for legislative oversight to protect democratic principles.

One question I have is: On page 15, Anderson discusses the Supreme Court’s willingness to reduce its role in civil liberties cases. What specific factors or case laws have influenced this shift, and how might this trend impact future civil liberties protections?

My thesis for the final paper is that safeguarding democratic principles during national security crises requires a balanced approach that emphasizes legislative oversight, judicial vigilance, and strict adherence to constitutional separation of powers, especially in the context of executive authority expansion post-9/11.

References

• Anderson, K. (2006). Law and terror. Policy Review, 139, 3-24.
• Bradley, C. (2010). Clear statement rules and executive war powers. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 33(1).
• Cole, D. (2003). Judging the next emergency: Judicial review and individual rights in times of crisis. Michigan Law Review, 101(8).
• Dealy, J. D. (2007). Subordination of powers: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 30(3).
• Fisher, L. (2003). Military tribunals: A sorry history. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33(3).
• Foley, B. (2007). Guantanamo and beyond: Dangers of rigging the rules. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 97(4).
• Katyal, N., Bongiovanni, G., & Valentini, C. (2007). Terrorism, emergency powers, and the role of the U.S. Supreme Court. Ratio Juris, 20(4).
• Niday, J. (2008). The war against terror as war against the Constitution. Canadian Review of American Studies, 38(1).
• Vladeck, S. (2010). The unreviewable executive: Kiyemba, Maqaleh, and the Obama administration. Constitutional Commentary, 26(3).