Martial Law and the Expansion of Civil Liberties during the Civil War

2020 ◽  
pp. 52-72
Author(s):  
Jonathan W. White
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Martial Law

scholarly journals Civil Liberties and Civil War: The Great Emancipator as Civil Libertarian

1993 ◽  
Vol 91 (6) ◽  
pp. 1353
Author(s):  
Paul Finkelman ◽  
Mark E. Neely
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Civil Libertarian

Conflict and Courts: Civil War and Judicial Independence across Democracies

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 700-713
Author(s):  
Brad Epperly ◽  
Jacqueline Sievert
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Studies ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
Cross National

Many argue that during conflict, executive power expands at the expense of the judiciary and civil liberties. Although this is a common conjecture, no systematic study of conflict and judicial independence exists. We argue that conflict, rather than strictly inhibiting independence, is instead a critical juncture that increases the possibility of institutional change, either positive or negative. We assess this claim in three ways: cross-national analyses of (1) de facto and (2) de jure judicial independence after the onset of conflict, and (3) a case study of statutory and jurisdictional changes to the federal judiciary after the outbreak of the U.S. Civil War. Each illustrates that conflict onset is associated with a higher likelihood of changing levels—both decreases and increases—rather than unidirectional decreases in judicial independence. We then present preliminary hypotheses and analyses for three factors that, given conflict onset, should be associated with either improved or worsened conditions for the judiciary. This study has implications for research on conflict, courts, and the rule of law in both political science and legal studies.

Hidden in Plain Sight: Martial Law and the Making of the High Courts of Justice, 1642–60

2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 859-884 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Collins
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Martial Law ◽  
Charles I ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Legal Problems ◽  
The Creation

AbstractThis article traces the transformation of martial law during the Civil Wars and Interregnum culminating with the creation of the High Courts of Justice in the 1650s. The Long, Rump, and Protectorate parliaments used, adapted, and combined martial law procedures with others to solve some of the most difficult and pressing legal problems they faced. These problems included the trial of spies, traitors to the parliamentary cause, Charles I and his royalist commanders of the Second Civil War, and conspirators, plotters, and rebels during the 1650s. The Long Parliament, the English Commonwealth, and the Protectorate governments used these legal innovations to control discretion at law, and to terrorize dissidents into obedience. The Petition of Right, whose makers had demanded that English subjects only be tried by life and limb by their peers in peacetime, was overturned in order to meet these challenges.

Legal Preparedness for Public Health Emergencies: TOPOFF 2 and other Lessons

2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (S4) ◽  
pp. 43-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Heaton ◽  
Anne M. Murphy ◽  
Susan Allan ◽  
Harald Pietz
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Communication Systems ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Martial Law ◽  
State Laws ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
Public Health Emergencies ◽  
Process Coordination ◽  
Waste Repositories

There is a fine balance between civil liberties and protection of the public’s health.Legislators, especially those in the western United States, are concerned about selling the Model State Act (“Act”) because of the loss of civil liberties. State constitutions give governors broad powers, such as declaring martial law and giving public health leaders the authority to act. State laws should consider issues such as property rights; taking of businesses and supplies; quarantine and isolation; due process; coordination among states, counties and cities; communication systems; conscription of doctors and nurses; and compensation. When two mock emergency response drills were held in New Mexico, concerns arose regarding opening records associated with dams, national laboratories, waste repositories, and three air force bases.

Military Commissions: A Concise History

2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-48
Author(s):  
Detlev F. Vagts
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Civil War ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comprehensive Treatment ◽  
Martial Law ◽  
Postwar Germany ◽  
History Of ◽  
Military Commissions ◽  
Reconstruction Period

As military commissions have been revived in the wake of the attacks of September 11,2001, interest has grown in the history of the institution. The United States Supreme Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, sketched out some historical notes and set forth a tripartite division between law-of-war commissions, martial law commissions, and occupation tribunals. Various authors have advanced insights on this history, though most have focused on the prominent episodes, particularly the handful of Supreme Court cases. Even the most comprehensive article gives short shrift to the massive employment of commissions in the Reconstruction era and in postwar Germany. This essay attempts to advance the cause by sketching out the entire scope of the institution’s history and indicating what further research would have to be done to arrive at a truly comprehensive treatment. A basic difficulty is that the work product of military commissions is not encompassed in a series of trial reports like the Federal Supplement or the military’s own Court-Martial Reports. A handful of cases wound up in the Supreme Court and another half dozen stood out enough to attract historians’ interest. Otherwise, commission proceedings are memorialized, if at all, only in military general orders and records of trials that were maintained in the Office of the Judge Advocate General. I have explored the records pertaining to commissions in the Reconstruction period following the Civil War in anticipation of writing a comprehensive article. It is a difficult and time-consuming task. To complete the picture, similar pick-and-shovel work would have to be done on such extensive use of the commission as occurred in Germany after World War II. Both the Civil War-Reconstruction period and the German occupation produced thousands of trials.

scholarly journals Policing the G20 protests: ‘Too much order with too little law’ revisited

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Legrand ◽  
Simon Bronitt
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Police Service ◽  
Minimalist Approach ◽  
Policing Strategy ◽  
Do So

In the months leading up to November's G20 summit in 2014, Brisbane's residents would have been forgiven for anticipating the outbreak of a local civil war. Media outlets were leading with headlines stating, among other sensational claims, that ‘G20 anarchists vow chaos and mayhem for Brisbane's streets’, ‘Black Bloc tactics aim for Brisbane G20 shock and awe’ and ‘Destructive protest plan for G20’. Meanwhile, some of the most severe restrictions on civil liberties seen in Australia in recent years were legislated by the Queensland parliament. The G20 Safety and Security Act 2013 (Qld) (the G20 Act) was passed with little demur by a chamber that was only divided over the question of whether the laws were severe enough, with Queensland opposition police spokesman Bill Byrne MP declaring himself ‘surprised’ at the leniency of some of the sentencing provisions and the ‘minimalist’ approach to restricted areas. Of course, in the event the much-anticipated violence did not occur, and the media's pre-summit hyperbole was exposed as just that. Rather more prosaically — and accurately — the post-event headlines dutifully reported ‘Passionate, but mostly peaceful protests’ and ‘G20 protest day wraps up peacefully’. Given that previous G20 summits in London and Toronto saw outbreaks of considerable disorder, we might succumb to the temptation of declaring the peaceful protests in Brisbane to be a vindication of the heavy powers granted by the Queensland parliament. But we believe that to do so would be egregious. Here we reflect on the historical and political motivations underpinning the G20 Act, and draw attention to the rather more measured policing strategy employed by the Queensland Police Service (QPS). We argue that the safety and security of G20 participants and protesters owed little to the restrictive powers granted by the G20 Act, but resulted from a policing strategy that successfully married traditional and modern precepts of policing large events.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document