The Case of Hamdan v Rumsfeld - Assignment Example

Hamdan v Rumsfeld Affiliation: Was the Hamdan decision an example judicial activism or strict construction? Strict construction refers to the judges making ruling based strictly on the text as it is written. They do not make any inferences of the written text or allow any other thing to influence their ruling other than what the text from the law and constitution reads. Strict constructionism therefore allows judges to make almost similar ruling. Judicial activism on the other hand is whereby the judges allow external forces other than what is written in the text to influence their ruling. These external forces may include politics among other things and hence the decision may not exactly be legal as per se. most of the rulings made through judicial activism are forced by other circumstances (Liu, Karlan and Schroeder, 2010). In this case, the judges’ decisions were solely based on social constructionism. The Supreme Court judges based their ruling on the constitution as well as the laws provided by the Geneva Convention. As if this was not enough, they even made references in other cases that had been ruled in the past. No outside forces were allowed to influence their ruling not even the President’s words. The ruling of this case however would have not been based on strict constructionism had the case been handled in the states of Columbia or Virginia. This is so because the laws of these states are biased towards the politics of the day and not strictly what is in the constitution or other reference cases. The ruling by the judges also relied heavily on the amendments that had been made recently by the Congress as well as the Senate where they changed the language of the bill. The other evidence that the ruling was based on strict constructionism is the fact that almost all the judges agreed to the legal evidence points presented by the defense. 2. How does this decision impact society at large? The society from this impartial ruling will have more trust in the judiciary system now that they know the courts strictly follow the law. Most of the people especially in high profile cases do not trust this arm of the government to be completely impartial when making their ruling. There is always political interference and a hidden motive which dictates the ruling the case would take. In this case for example, the President had already made his position known about how he wanted the matter to be handled simply because the defendant was associated with the terrorist group. Everyone therefore expected that from the president’s declaration and stand on the case, the judges would follow suit with their ruling to match the influence by the president and other political factors therefore making the ruling a judicial activism one. With the judges strictly following the law and the constitution in their ruling and showing impartiality in the case, the public saw the judiciary from a different view and a view which they liked. People will not have the courage to trust the judiciary system to provide the right decision even if the right decision will not be in line with the wishes of the powerful people in government. This trust in the judiciary system by the society will reduce human rights activists being on the neck of the judiciary all the time about their rulings in different cases and especially the Supreme Court being the highest court on land (Walsh and Hemmens, 2013). 3. Does this decision strengthen or weaken the social contract? Social contract emphasizes the power the people hold and the rights they have in the government as the owners. It indicates that the leaders are simple just the guardians and custodians of the government who have been given that role by the owners of the government who are the people. In regards to social contract therefore, the people’s decision and not that of the guardians hold more water and has more impact and hence should be the one that is being followed at all times by every arm of the government. This case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is a clear indication that the social contract was enforced and hence giving more strength to it. The fact that the judges in the ruling were not biased towards the political influence they received from the head of the government but rather followed the law strictly which was made and passed by the people is an indication of the social contract being strengthened in every way possible. The social contract being strengthened is a clear indication that the people still have the upper hand in government and the decisions being made and the guardians have not overpowered them yet. It provides hope to the people of a future where their rights still matter more than the influence of the powerful politicians in the country (Rousseau, 2010). 4. What are the costs benefits to society of this decision? The case which involved a driver of the most feared and renowned terrorist Osama bin laden by not only the Americans but the whole world in general was clearly a high profile case. Every step of the case was being followed by not only US but the whole world. The fairness of the ruling and the judges following every correct legal proceeding before making their final ruling was a clear benefit to every individual out there in the whole world. The case showed that even those who are affiliated with the terrorist or worst criminals of all times still have their human rights and justice being upheld. The society from the ruling of the case and every legal proceeding followed to the letter was shown that each and every person in US and the whole world still matters no matter what crime they have committed or alleged to have committed. This case was in favor of the minority in the society. The driver was simply carrying out his job of driving his boss to every destination he was paid to go and would not question him because that is where he earned his daily bread. This did not mean that he was in agreement with the activities of his boss but he would nevertheless not condone or openly question them. The marginalized in the society have no say they simply follow their orders as long as by the end of the day they get to provide the basic rights to their families. The case favoring the minority using the law was an added bonus to all the people with minority status. They now believed that fairness and justice still prevailed even if they did not have money for bribe. The fact that the case had over a thousand lawyers and legal attaches working on it day and night even though the defendant had no financial ability to pay them or even assist them in any way is a clear indication that the people in society are joining hands to support the right course especially in regards to legal procedures. References Liu, G., Karlan, P. and Schroeder, C. (2010). Keeping Faith with the Constitution. New York: Oxford University Press. Rousseau, J. (2010). Social Contract. New York: Simon & Schuster. Walsh, A and Hemmens, C. (2013). Law, Justice and Society: A Sociolegal Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More