Reid v. Covert

Issue

This particular case challenged the supremacy of the American constitution over treaties and treaty law. The case establishes the importance of the constitution and over laws made by congress or signed by the executive.

Other than the supremacy of the constitution, other judicial issues are also established in this case. It questions the role of the military American system of government. Furthermore, the case questions the power of the congress over the exposure of civilians to military tribunals. This denial to engage civilians to civil courts ends up depriving them of their access to constitutionally given rights.

In this particular case, the defendant who had been the wife of a United States air force sergeant had been tried and convicted, by a military court martial in England, for the sergeants’ murder. This had been in accordance with article 2(11) of the uniform code of military justice. The defendants’ argument in this case was that the article under which she was tried was unconstitutional. The argument by the defense in the case was that since the defendant was a civilian, the military has no right trying her under its jurisdiction as it would a military officer. Thus, the defense has petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus because he American constitution forbade the trial of civilians by military authorizes.      

Rules

The case that was a consolidation of two cases was a success. This means that the Supreme Court found in favor of the defendants. What was established in this case was the supremacy of the constitution. The court established the importance of the constitution by establishing its link with the land (United States, 1975). The judges found that the state was a part of the constitution and thus the constitution had the right to protect all its citizens regardless of where they were. The court found that the rights of the American was not only protected by customs and traditions, but also enshrined in the constitution.

Having established the supremacy of the constitution, the court quoted articles III and 2. These laws provide that any trials of crimes by civilian Americans should be done by way of jury. These laws also provide that where the crime was committed outside the jurisdiction where the crime was not done. In this case the constitution gives congress the power to direct by law any other place that such a trial may be held. In asserting this fact the court quoted re Ross, 140 U.S. 453. In quoting the case, the court stated that the where common law and equity then the ministers of such countries had the authority to make laws to make up for such deficiencies.   

The court also quoted the fifth and the sixth amendment. This two laws provide the fact that no American be held answerable for crimes unless before a grand jury. The law goes ahead to state that it was the right of the accused to a speedy and public trial.

The role of the congress as a law making organ as mandated by the constitution was an issue discussed in the case. The judges in this case decided that congress was granted authority by the constitution to make laws concerning American civilians. This power was vested upon congress by article 1 of the constitution.  

The case addressed the matter of the supremacy of the in the second part of the cases ruling. At the time of the crime, there existed a treaty between the U.S government and Britain. This agreement provided that any crime committed by American service members and their dependants on British soil (Haljan, 2013). This agreement was domesticated under article 2(11) of the uniform code of military justice.

The courts have always recognized the supremacy of the constitution treaties. In quoting Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, the Supreme Court found that indeed the as much as the constitution recognized treaty law, the treaty had no power to dictate the constitution. In fact, the court stated that as was the case in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, any treaty inconsistent with the constitution was not recognized under American law.

The American law recognizes the important role or the military. In doing so, it confers some certain liberties on the military. Such liberties include the right to try service members under the military (Vile, 2003). The courts have however limited the jurisdiction of the military. In Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, the courts found that military courts were without powers to try civilians. Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 asserted the courts position on this matter.

Analysis

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Thus, any other laws created under the direction or guidance of the constitution cannot be superior to the constitution. Treaty law is part of the law established under the constitution. The treaty that established the jurisdiction of the military court over its servicemen in foreign land could not supersede the constitution. In this case it was right for the court to uphold the supremacy of the constitution over that of the treaty between America and Britain.

Rules established under the constitution are meant to protect the rights of American citizen. Thus, the right of civilians to be tried before a grand jury is accorded by the constitution and no statute can negate it. Thus the court was right in declaring that that the court martial had acted outside its jurisdiction in trying a civilian, even if that civilian had been on foreign land.

The constitution grants the congress the powers to make laws that seal the loops left behind by common law and equity. This means that congress has the power to create more jurisdictions where civilians can be tried as American civilians even if it is on foreign land. This would ensure that they access their constitutional rights even as criminals.

Finally, while the constitution grand the military the power and jurisdiction to try cases of crimes of men in the service, the same position does not apply to civilians. The court has established that the civilians linked in one way or another to people in the military have to be tried as civilians and not military personnel.

Conclusion

The decision made by the Supreme Court was a just one in this case. Not only did it uphold the constitution and its supremacy as the absolute law of the land, the case showcases the importance and value of the constitution on the lives of all Americans. Indeed, the request presented by the defendant was a justified one. In this case, the Supreme Court has played an important role in ensuring its continued interpretation of constitution for the people of America.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Haljan, D. (2013). Separating powers: International law before national courts. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.

United States. (1975). Reid v. Covert (1956 & 1957): Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957). Bethesda, Md: University Publications of America.

Vile, J. R. (2003). Encyclopedia of constitutional amendments, proposed amendments, and amending issues: 1789 - 2002. Santa Barbara, Calif. [u.a.: ABC-CLIO.