The 9/11 attacks on U.S soil marked the beginning of the war that was declared on terrorism. In turn it also shifted the balance of power among the three branches of government. Congress gave the executive branch unlimited power to act with extreme prejudice and the Supreme Court went along with the decisions the executive branch made to combat terrorism. This paper will explain how the three branches of our federal government- executive, legislative, and judicial- have responded to terrorism.
The President’s greatest responsibility is to protect the American people from both foreign and domestic threats. The president is given the authority and responsibility to accomplish this task by the Constitution. President Bush convinced the people …show more content…
This was used as a formal Declaration of War, and it gave President Bush and his executive branch the power to use force against nations or persons who perpetrated the terrorist attacks against the United States. The AUMF gave the executive branch the right to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to bring the terrorists responsible for the attack to justice. Then, on October 26, 2001, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT ACT. This act became controversial because it raised questions for all Americans about the line between individual liberty, security, and privacy and government intrusion and intervention. However, the Supreme Court has consistently refused to overrule the provisions of the Patriot Act. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the Patriot Act remain in force today and are considered the most significant contributions by Congress to the “War on Terror.” As time went on Congress did try to regain some of the power it had ceded to the executive branch by passing the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. This law stated that terrorists could not seek to have cases in civilian courts rather than military courts. Congress also passed the Military Commissions Act to re-establish the military tribunal system however both of these laws were reversed by the Supreme Court in …show more content…
Rumsfeld and Rasal v.Bush both of which were heard in 2004. These cases affirmed that the federal courts could review the detention of suspected terrorists as part of the War on Terrorism. The Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in 2006 that any military commissions that were established by President George W. Bush were invalid because they were not authorized by Congress. Finally in 2008, in Boumediene V. Bush the Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have the power to take jurisdiction away from federal courts concerning petitions from aliens detained at Guantanamo. The dominant theme in all of these cases was to reestablish separation of powers as the framers did in the
The President’s greatest responsibility is to protect the American people from both foreign and domestic threats. The president is given the authority and responsibility to accomplish this task by the Constitution. President Bush convinced the people …show more content…
This was used as a formal Declaration of War, and it gave President Bush and his executive branch the power to use force against nations or persons who perpetrated the terrorist attacks against the United States. The AUMF gave the executive branch the right to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to bring the terrorists responsible for the attack to justice. Then, on October 26, 2001, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT ACT. This act became controversial because it raised questions for all Americans about the line between individual liberty, security, and privacy and government intrusion and intervention. However, the Supreme Court has consistently refused to overrule the provisions of the Patriot Act. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the Patriot Act remain in force today and are considered the most significant contributions by Congress to the “War on Terror.” As time went on Congress did try to regain some of the power it had ceded to the executive branch by passing the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. This law stated that terrorists could not seek to have cases in civilian courts rather than military courts. Congress also passed the Military Commissions Act to re-establish the military tribunal system however both of these laws were reversed by the Supreme Court in …show more content…
Rumsfeld and Rasal v.Bush both of which were heard in 2004. These cases affirmed that the federal courts could review the detention of suspected terrorists as part of the War on Terrorism. The Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in 2006 that any military commissions that were established by President George W. Bush were invalid because they were not authorized by Congress. Finally in 2008, in Boumediene V. Bush the Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have the power to take jurisdiction away from federal courts concerning petitions from aliens detained at Guantanamo. The dominant theme in all of these cases was to reestablish separation of powers as the framers did in the