[.ca] All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime (ISBN 0679767320)

From Amazon.com:
In the first hectic days of the American Civil War, the future of the Union was in doubt. Troops traveling to defend Washington were waylaid by mobs in Maryland. In the midst of this crisis, Abraham Lincoln sought to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to permit the military to detain those who were interfering with the prosecution of the war. When the Supreme Court limited his ability to do so, Lincoln complained that the Court was allowing "all the laws, but one, go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated." Eventually, civil liberties were curtailed for the duration of the Civil War--as they would be again in World Wars I and II. That Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist's analysis of civil liberties in wartime is entitled All the Laws but One hints where he comes down on the subject. Rehnquist acknowledges and criticizes the excesses of civil liberties violations in wartime--during World War I, for example, editorial cartoonists critical of the government were prosecuted for sedition. But he defends the need to curtail some liberties in emergency situations--including, surprisingly, some instances of the evacuation and relocation of Japanese Americans that took place during World War II. Rehnquist's style can be disjointed at times--as when cursory biographical information of key players seems to have been tacked on to fill out the otherwise slim volume--but the historical analysis of martial law and other Civil War controversies, which comprises the overwhelming majority of the book, remains fascinating. --Ted Frank

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

Wow. Explains a lot.:
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.

As timely as it can be:
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.

A great look into the mind of a justice:
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.

A Timely Book, but not an Easy Read:
"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.