Although the Supreme Court generally defers to presidential actions, the Court was quite active in striking down presidential actions in this particular area of law, including cases such as Hamdi v.

A) Rumsfeld,

B) Hamdan v.

C) Rumsfeld,

D) Boumediene v.

E) Bush.

Question

Social Studies

Guest

22 May, 18:45

Although the Supreme Court generally defers to presidential actions, the Court was quite active in striking down presidential actions in this particular area of law, including cases such as Hamdi v.

A) Rumsfeld,

B) Hamdan v.

C) Rumsfeld,

D) Boumediene v.

E) Bush.

+5

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Messiah Macdonald · Answer 1

The answer are:

Explanation:

Hamdi v. A) Rumsfeld,

B) Hamdan v. C) Rumsfeld,

Boumediene v. E) Bush.

This are all related to prisoner rights - in this particular area of law there were some exclusions.

Although the Supreme Court generally defers to presidential actions, the Court was quite active in striking down presidential actions in this particular area of law, including cases such as Hamdi v.A) Rumsfeld,B) Hamdan v.C) Rumsfeld,D) Boumediene v.E) Bush.

Although the Supreme Court generally defers to presidential actions, the Court was quite active in striking down presidential actions in this particular area of law, including cases such as Hamdi v.

A) Rumsfeld,

B) Hamdan v.

C) Rumsfeld,

D) Boumediene v.

E) Bush.