In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court considered whether it had jurisdiction under the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) of 2005 to consider the habeas corpus petition of Salim Hamdan, who was being held at Guantanamo Bay. Although the dissent argued that the court did not have jurisdiction, a 6–3 majority Supreme Court decided that it did, and proceeded to rule on the merits.

a) Suppose that the federal government wished to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction in all habeas corpus petitions of all individuals being held at Guantanamo Bay. Discuss what actions the president or Congress could take to do so. Discuss the potential basis for such power.

b) In the context of the scenario, discuss how such actions by the federal government would promote or interfere with the separation of powers, and discuss the potential constitutionality of any such actions.

a) The president can propose a law stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction in all habeas corpus petitions of all individuals being held at Guantanamo Bay and ask the Congress to pass it.

It is based on the power from the US Constitution for the Congress to pass laws and the president to carry them out.

b) Such actions by the president and the Congress are within their powers but will very likely be interpreted as interfering with the separation of powers. It is because they take away power from the Supreme Court which has the power of interpreting the laws by the Constitution.

Asdfjkadfjkakjf Asdfjkadfjkakjf · Answer 2 · 2021-05-31T09:04:22+02:00

Answer:

Explanation:

a) congress can pass law 2 strip those rights from individuals held. the consitution gave congress right to pass laws. doing so will overturn wat the supreme court has ruled. so the court may not be happy but they only have rights to interpret but not make laws.

b) it will definitely interfere the supreme court's right to interpret the laws. but it is constitutional as the congress passes laws; not the court.