current affairs

Worth reading if only because the Rehnquist court considers, in its 2003-4 term, the fate of wartime detainees, both US citizens and foreign prisoners, and whether they can be held without due process and possibly tried by military tribunals. He reviews past clashes between civil liberty and national security, notably the Civil War era. He does highlight some little-known cases -- the military courts' overreaching in WWII Hawaii, for example. Other commentators noted, however, he could've said more about the Youngstown (steel seizure) case of 1952 (he clerked for Justice Robert Jackson then), a major check to wartime Presidential power.

Still, worth reading with the 2004 cases in mind, though I would also recommend Mark E. Neely's "The Fate of Liberty" for another view of the Civil War cases, some of which are still current case law.

My guess (written 2/04), and that's all it is from reading this book, is that Rehnquist may be inclined to support the national security side, but would resist any attempt to exclude Federal courts from oversight or final review.

While a surprisingly engaging descriptive story of Civil War, World War I and II vignettes, this book was far from the "major contributor to our understanding of the great American experiment" that the dust jacket proclaims. Mr. Rehnquist is adequate in his historical background, and obviously enjoys explaining the history of the Supreme Court. I voraciously read the entertaining beginning chapters, expecting them to be a prelude to incisive commentary and analysis, only to find that the shallow descriptive text was all there was. By the final, repetitive chapter, I was left wondering what the point of the book was. While I appreciated the books accessiblity to the non-lawyer, more critical thinking would have been appropriate from the Chief Justice.

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is perhaps the most basic right established in common law. The phrase "habeas corpus" is latin for "produce the body", and a writ of habeus corpus is an order from a judge to an official requiring the official to produce a prisoner in the judge's court to justify the imprisonment. It is the testing of this basic right, in wartime, which Chief Justice Rehnquist examines in this book.

Rehnquist concentrates on three periods in American history where habeus corpus was suspended: the Civil War, World War One and World War Two. He describes, analyzes, and even criticizes how the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, decided how and to what extent civil rights can be suspended in wartime.

As insight into the Supreme Court's decisions on habeas corpus, the book is invaluable: e.g. holding civilians prisoners without charges is OK, but prosecuting them in a military court is not. As raw material this is timely. However as a whole the book fails to hold our interest, despite its brevity. The book's chief flaw is also possibly a good judge's virtue: impartiality. Rehnquist avoids conveying a strong position on what he thinks the law should be and what future course it should take. Just as well. Better to have as Chief Justice a known conservative unwilling to commit himself but willing to listen, than to have a clear doctrinaire who expresses opinions too clearly from which he won't deviate.