Talk:Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
{{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | Law Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | United States Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| per WP:SOAPBOX. Tim Song (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Habeas CorpusUntitledI reverted. Habeas corpus is not the means to "relitigate" whether one's conviction or sentence was obtained in violation of the United States Constitution. It is to test it in the first instance. There has been no litigation on the subject before habeas proceedings are commeneced. A habeas corpus proceeding is not an appeal. It is a separate lawsuit, civil in nature, filed against the person confining the convicted person on the basis that the confinement is illegal. Extra-record evidence (i.e., evidence beyond what is contained in the record of the trial) may be introduced to prove the allegations. Unended 07:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Footnotes Are Driving Me NutsPlease, someone, fix the footnotes. I don't know how. ---Axios023 05:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC) AlsoAEDPA had an impact outside of habeas law. If memory serves, it also enacted a change to immigration law (along with the IIRIRA). Maybe someone could add something about that. ---Axios023 05:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The link to the text of the act is broken. Please fix it. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Neutrality?Quoting: "Other provisions of the AEDPA created entirely new statutory law. For example, before AEDPA the *judicially created abuse* of the writ doctrine restricted the presentation of new claims through subsequent habeas petitions." -- Wonderstruck (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Umm...it's the *judicially created* *abuse of the writ* doctrine. i.e., the doctrine is called "abuse of the writ", see, e.g., McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991). I see no NPoV problems. But maybe some rephrasing is in order? What about "before AEDPA, the abuse of the writ doctrine, created by the courts, restricted......"? Tim Song (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
How do you question the Neutrality of an Article? Where have you seen Neutrality recently? How is a law passed in a "Representative Democracy" (Democracy is Chaos pure and simple) crafted by Congress signed by Presidential signature, published in the National Register not Neutral? When was the last time anyone who reads Wikipedia new a Writ of Habeas Corpus was signed? A prisoner released? from any jail? or prison? Any place in the United States of America or its Territories and Possessions? Habeas Corpus is history. Habeas Corpus did it ever exist in America? "We the People" most beautiful of documents. Written for preservation of a tolerant, reasonable and equitable society has been and will continue to be revised, re-written, liberties denied across the breadth of our nation. The last individuals who created similar national laws were named Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao and the list could go on and on and the Pol Pots and Khmer Rouge and Abu Sayef... The names are not important only actions of mankind and leaders who feel need to express their opinion, in the denial of liberty. Effective Death Penalty Act? The name itself belies the ignorance of its authors. When, in the history of the world has their been effective Death Penalty? When Jesus was crucified? It certainly was effective. The world has never been the same. Please tell me what is anti-nuclear about neutrality? Anti-nuclear as against the nuclear unit of a sensible humanity.. Everyone discusses case law? What does that have to do with neutrality? effectiveness of execution? and Morons that follow all the Goats that Jump Around the World simultaneously. |
Original habeas?
IANAL, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court avoided the Constitutional question by construing AEDPA not to affect the "original" habeas jurisdiction (which is technically appellate) of the Supreme Court, so that it still retains statutory authority to issue a writ to someone in the extraordinary circumstance of an unconstitutional conviction or sentence that cannot be remedied by any other means, AEDPA notwithstanding. If this is correct, should it be mentioned in the article? 24.5.194.110 (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Not part of Contract with America
The Contract with America was introduced in 1994, and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act was originally introduced by Bob Dole as the "Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995" in 1995 as a result of the Oklahoma City Bombing. ThePerseid SCD (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)