Equality in the War on Terror

IF 4.9 1区 社会学 Q1 Social Sciences Stanford Law Review Pub Date : 2007-04-27 DOI:10.4324/9781315260150-9
N. Katyal
{"title":"Equality in the War on Terror","authors":"N. Katyal","doi":"10.4324/9781315260150-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Today, much public attention and litigation in the wake of the government's response to the September 11, 2001 attacks centers on one or another claims about the government's substantive illegality (such as claims based on the Due Process Clause). This is a mistake. Instead of focusing on the ultimate individual liberty questions, challenges should first focus on equality. Since the terrorist attacks, the government has repeatedly singled out aliens for special disfavor. For example, the Military Commissions Act blatantly discriminates against aliens - shunting the 20 million green-card holders and 5 billion people across the planet into a different, and far inferior, trial procedure than what American citizens face. Since at least the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment's equality guarantee, such legislation has never been placed in the United States Code. The equality challenges are the next big thing in the war on terror. While discrimination by the federal government against aliens might be justified when it is handing out government benefits, it is not appropriate when deciding whether someone can be put before a tribunal with the power to dispense the most awesome powers of government, such as life imprisonment and the death penalty. When legislation singles out only powerless aliens, moreover, the standard checks on government abuse, such as political accountability, fail to operate. The result is not only that the legislation runs afoul of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, it also eliminates the legislation from the zone of deference traditionally due to the political branches.","PeriodicalId":51386,"journal":{"name":"Stanford Law Review","volume":"59 1","pages":"1365"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2007-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stanford Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315260150-9","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Today, much public attention and litigation in the wake of the government's response to the September 11, 2001 attacks centers on one or another claims about the government's substantive illegality (such as claims based on the Due Process Clause). This is a mistake. Instead of focusing on the ultimate individual liberty questions, challenges should first focus on equality. Since the terrorist attacks, the government has repeatedly singled out aliens for special disfavor. For example, the Military Commissions Act blatantly discriminates against aliens - shunting the 20 million green-card holders and 5 billion people across the planet into a different, and far inferior, trial procedure than what American citizens face. Since at least the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment's equality guarantee, such legislation has never been placed in the United States Code. The equality challenges are the next big thing in the war on terror. While discrimination by the federal government against aliens might be justified when it is handing out government benefits, it is not appropriate when deciding whether someone can be put before a tribunal with the power to dispense the most awesome powers of government, such as life imprisonment and the death penalty. When legislation singles out only powerless aliens, moreover, the standard checks on government abuse, such as political accountability, fail to operate. The result is not only that the legislation runs afoul of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, it also eliminates the legislation from the zone of deference traditionally due to the political branches.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
反恐战争中的平等
今天,随着政府对2001年9月11日袭击事件的回应,许多公众关注和诉讼都集中在一个或另一个关于政府实质性非法行为的主张上(例如基于正当程序条款的主张)。这是一个错误。挑战应该首先集中在平等问题上,而不是关注最终的个人自由问题。自恐怖袭击以来,政府一再对外国人特别不友好。例如,《军事委员会法案》公然歧视外国人——将全球2000万绿卡持有者和50亿人口分流到与美国公民所面临的审判程序不同的地方,而且审判程序要差得多。至少从第十四修正案的平等保障获得批准以来,这种立法从未被列入美国法典。对平等的挑战是反恐战争中的下一件大事。虽然联邦政府在发放政府福利时对外国人的歧视可能是合理的,但在决定是否可以将某人交给有权行使政府最可怕的权力(如终身监禁和死刑)的法庭时,这种歧视是不合适的。此外,当立法只挑出无权的外国人时,对政府滥用职权的标准检查,如政治问责制,就无法发挥作用。其结果不仅是立法违反了宪法对平等保护的保障,而且还使立法失去了传统上由于政治部门而受到尊重的区域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
2.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Does nationality affect nurses' information security participation? A comparative study in Iran and Poland. "Sorry” Is Never Enough: How State Apology Laws Fail to Reduce Medical Malpractice Liability Risk. What Is Federalism in Healthcare For? "Sorry” Is Never Enough: How State Apology Laws Fail to Reduce Medical Malpractice Liability Risk. Interrogated with Intellectual Disabilities: The Risks of False Confession.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1