The case of Hamdan v Rumsfeld Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

The case of Hamdan v Rumsfeld - Essay Examplede by Senate and Congress and the changing of the language in the bill whereby even though the courts would be stripped off jurisdiction in Guantanamo Bay cases, the pending cases would still be comprehend by the court. The fact that the legal language and points argued presented by the defense was lay downd strictly on constabulary and almost every one of them had the Supreme Court judges agree to them was evident that the case and view were solely based on strict construction. The ruling would however have been based on judicial activism had it been based on Columbia or Virginia as the ruling would have been political.The decision for the judges to base their ruling on strict construction was an indication of the judicial arm of the government being simple and this boosts the societys trust in this arm of the government. Allegation shave been made in the retiring(a) about how the court prejudiced the courts are and the judges show much support to the politics and governance of the day rather than do what is right. This decision however completely changed that view and especially for the immigrants and people of other(a) races who are considered minority like the Yemeni driver. The society will also digress believing in the bill of rights as the decision which was based on the sixth amendment and the third Geneva Convention upheld impartiality for all and accorded the prisoners in the military prison in Cuba a fighting chance for their cases to be comprehend and for them to be proven guilty or not as prisoners of war. The society can now start having more faith in the judicial system and believing that everyone has a fighting chance and a chance to be heard in court and the ruling made fair (Walsh and Craig 28).The social wince emphasizes that the individuals are the real people behind the government and even though they have appointed leadership as state people to govern them, they are just considered the guardians of the peoples rights (Rousseau, 26). These guardians are suppositious