Civil Rights and Terrorism, Essay Example

Rivkin and Casey’s op-ed piece, “The Law and War: Checks and Balances” argues that the measures taken by the Bush administration during the war on terror are perfectly compatible with the American constitution and do not designate any abuse of power.  Primarily, it is the continued importance of institutions such as the Supreme Court, which still decide on the president’s decisions, that demonstrates the legality of Bush’s actions: “if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the president’s detention of enemy combatants without trial during the conflict, it does not mean that the United States will have somehow violated its own most sacred traditions.” (Rivkin & Casey, 2004) Moreover, the lively public debate over Bush’s policy decisions are construed as demonstrating the signs of a healthy democracy, as opposed to any transgression of constitutional law: “the very fact that the most controversial steps taken in the war on terror…are regularly debated in Congress, the media and elsewhere, and are being reviewed by the courts suggests the system designed by the framers is working perfectly well.” (Rivkin & Casey, 2004) Thus, for Rivkin and Casey, insofar as the president’s executive decisions are monitored by a non-presidential body, such as the Supreme Court, alongside the free expression of public opinion, this indicates that the American legal system has not been compromised by Bush’s war on terror.

Moreover, Rivkin and Casey (2004) note that the U.S. Constitution is not suspended in times of war, while nevertheless identifying that the president is legally recognized to act according to his own volition during this same time of war. Such a duality of action Rivkin and Casey posit (2004) is made possible according to the foresight of the writers of the constitution, to the extent that their classical education led them to a deeper historical comprehension of abuses of power as a primary reason for the collapse of republics. Hence, for the authors it is both the original design of the constitution and the contemporary debates concerning governmental action that are clearly indicative of the absence of any abuses of power under Bush.

Works Cited

Rivken, D.B. & Casey, L.A.  (2004, January 28). The Law and War; Checks and Balances. The Washington Times, p. A17.