In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 542 U.S. 502 (2004), the Supreme Court considered whether or not an American citizen, who was alleged to be an enemy combatant, had the same due process rights as any other American citizen. The question for this discussion is whether or not you agree with the Court's decision and their analysis. Make sure you don't just agree or disagree without providing a clear explanation of your critique of their analysis. If you have a different analysis, make sure you provide a rationale. Are you taking an originalist approach? A living constitution approach to your analysis?

In reflecting on what your decision would be, what influences your decision? So many of our perspectives are driven not necessarily by facts, or the rule of law, but by what coincides with our deeply held beliefs. What beliefs do you think might influence your approach? Should Supreme Court justices' deeply held beliefs drive their decisions? Think about the impact on our political and social life as you think about these questions.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

ANSWER In Hamdi v Rumsfeld the Supreme Court grappled with the fundamental question of whether an American citizen accused of being an enemy combatant ... View the full answer