Excerpt 1

Points for discussion

  1. In the wake of 9/11 many Americans think the notion of habeas corpus is a quaint relic of the past. To what extent would some of the delegates at the Alaska Convention have agreed with that assessment?
  2. What is the nature of the argument made by those who claimed that Alaska’s security position was much weaker than that of other states?
  3. What would have been the possible effect on civil liberties in Alaska if the original "imminent peril" wording of the Bill of Rights committee had not been changed?
  4. Why is it that the Suspension Clause and the Due Process clause are completely incompatible?
  5. Is the fact that the Alaska Constitution allows suspension of the write of habeas corpus in case of "imminent invasion" a major difference from other constitutions? From the U.S. Constitution?