All the Laws but One : Civil Liberties in Wartime

Rating:
Summary: A Timely Book, but not an Easy Read
Review: "All the Laws but One" was published in 1998, but it somewhat anticipates the contentious post 9-11 question of how far the U.S. government be allowed to curtail civil liberties to protect public safety. The book's primary value is that it allows a glimpse into the mind of someone who will be deciding the answer to that question.

Contrary to some reviewers' comments here, Chief Justice Rehnquist's position on the matter is more to the middle than one might expect. While he believes in a balancing tension between liberty and order, and that the scales quite naturally tip towards order in wartime, he is also critical of some executive decisions that rashly peeled away civil liberties under the guise of wartime necessity.

More than three-quarters of this book focuses on executive power, and the judiciary's response to the use of that power, during the U.S. Civil War. The rest of the book looks mainly at the curtailment of civil liberties during WW1 and WW2. Rehnquist rarely considers at any length, however, the proper judicial response to the scaling back of civil liberties when war has not been declared, but a clear threat exists.

The book is highly sensible in its viewpoints. Unfortunately, Rehnquist is not a natural writer and his account often gets bogged down in his prose. His history of events sometimes feels tacked on to his analysis of the legal cases. If the author was not the Chief Justice, and the subject matter not of such compelling contemporary relevance, there would be little reason to bother with this book.

Rating:
Summary: Suddenly apt in today's world!
Review: Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist wrote this book well before anyone could have imagined 9/11 and its aftermath, but these words written in peacetime seem especially appropriate now.

Rehnquist offers a balanced and sensitive discussion of some of the major issues in the history of American civil liberties in wartime. The bulk of his book focuses on Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus during the Civil War. However, issues stemming from the World Wars, such as the suppression of speech and the internment of Japanese-Americans, are also considered in a thoughtful way, both from the perspectives of the times of the respective cases as well as that of today, benefitting from the hindsight history affords.

The Chief Justice seems to take great pains to explain otherwise complicated legal proceedings in a way that is accessable to virtually everyone. For anyone seeking to make sense of the debates over modern-day civil liberties, this book serves as an excellent introduction to the actions of those who have come before us.

Rating:
Summary: A great look into the mind of a justice
Review: Chief Justice Rehnquist has now written 3 books, all of which I have read. I actually don't find them too controversial, although some of the internet reviewers seem to. I do find all of Rehnquist's books, especially this one, to be great reviews of the relevants cases and controversies about a given topic. He is especially thorough in this book, tracing the suppression of civil liberties in the Civil War, World War I and World War II. He covers numerous cases during the Civil War (McCardle, Milligan), as well as an extensive look at Johns Wilkes Booth's murder of President Lincoln and its aftermath.

Supreme Court justices do not often publicly announce their philosophies outside of their opinions. Although Rehnquist seems to be objective for the most part, this book is still a fascinating look into the mind of one of most influential justices of the past quarter century.

Rating:
Summary: Wow. Explains a lot.
Review: I really enjoy reading Lessig's blog and Balkin's blog. Jack Balkin is Professor of Constitutional Law Yale, and has very perceptive insights on the impact of the high court on the structure of political parties in the USA. Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Constitutional Law Stanford, is very interesting reading. His essays are insightful, and well reasoned, and are an example of the types of questions Constitutional issues are framed by. I mention these two gentleman to explain that I really like Constitutional law. When I saw the book by CHEIF JUSTICE SCOTUS Rehnquist, I expected an essay on Article I of the Constitution and English common law of epic quality.

My jaw hit the floor when I found that Mr. Rehnquist's standard of a correctly reasoned question of constitutional law is "public outcry." Your jaw will hit the floor when you discover that he doesn't consider half the States separating from the Union to be `public outcry.' Your jaw will hit the floor as he ignores issue after issue, and doesn't ask any questions. Wow. Explains a lot.

Rating:
Summary: An Enriching Experience
Review: The brilliant Chief Justice has done it once again defintively expressing history through a judicial lens. In this marvolous feat the Chief Justice goes into further detail about Taney Rebuking Lincoln, the Steelworkers case of the 50's, and the American incarceration of Japanese citizens. In this account the Chief Justice gives numerous citations of Supreme Courts changing of paradigms during War time. The Chief has shown once again to have a brilliant graspe on history, just like he does in his practice of "judicial defference" on the high court. A must book for any serious student of history and of law. However, to enjoy this book prior knowledge of the Supreme Court and history should be required.

Rating:
Summary: Oh well, impartiality doesn't make for great writing.
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Oh well, impartiality doesn't make for great writing.
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Wrong
Review: This is an intelligent, articulate and, thanks to 9/11, timely discussion of constitutional problems that arise in wartime. The fact that the United States is now engaged in a "war on terrorism," and that the author is still Chief Justice of the United States, lends the book a special immediacy. It should be pointed out that Rehnquist limits his discussions to declared wars (WWI and WWII) and to the Civil War, which the Supreme Court in the Prize Cases of 1863 said could be treated as the equivalent of a declared war. For this reason, some of the constitutional principles considered may not be applicable to the current struggle with terrorists. Many of the broad principles considered, however, may well apply even to the "undeclared" wars which seem to have become the rule, rather than the exception, since Harry Truman committed hundreds of thousands of American troops to a "police action" in Korea in 1950. Rehnquist is a clear and often engaging writer (although his recitations of the facts of particular cases are sometimes flat). The book is engrossing, both for its insights into the hazards that civil liberties are subject to in time of war and for the window it opens on the reasoning processes of the Chief Justice himself. Near the end of the book, Rehnquist mentions "the human factor that inevitably enters into even the most careful judicial decision." "All the Laws But One" may help us understand the "human factor" that enters into the judicial decisions of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

Rating:
Summary: As timely as it can be
Review: 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.