Mcarthur Vs. Clifford

Mcarthur vs Clifford

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1968

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/102153

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/102153
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1968
Case Number: 393 U.S. 1002
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mcarthur

Respondent

Clifford

Excerpt

mcarthur v. clifford - 393 u.s. 1002 (1968) u.s. supreme court mcarthur v. clifford , 393 u.s. 1002 (1968) 393 u.s. 1002 thomas w. mc arthur et al., petitioners, v. clark clifford, secretary of defense, et al. no. 613. supreme court of the united states december 16, 1968 philip j. hirschkop, for petitioners. solicitor general griswold, for respondents. motions to dispense with printing petition and to amend petition granted. petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit denied. mr. justice douglas, dissenting. i dissent from a denial of certiorari in this case. an important unresolved constitutional issue of immediate importance to many americans is involved. it is whether men may be sent abroad to fight in a war which has not been declared by congress. this is a point on which i wrote a rather elaborate dissent in holmes v. united states, 391 u.s. 936 , and hart v. united states, 391 u.s. 956 . this certainly is a substantial question and one which has never been resolved by this court. the question of the power of the president to conduct a war without a declaration of war was raised in the prize cases [the amy warwick], 2 black 635, during the civil war. that was an internal insurrection which would perhaps be analogous here if the vietnamese were invading the united states. it was a five-to-four decision, upholding presidential power. would it have been the same if lincoln had had an expeditionary force fighting a 'war' overseas? there should not be the slightest doubt but that whenever the chief executive of the country takes any citizen by the neck and either puts him in prison or subjects him to some ordeal or sends him overseas to fight in a war, the question is a justiciable one. to call issues of that kind 'political' would be to abdicate the judicial function which the court honored in the midst of the civil war in the prize cases.

Full Judgment

MCARTHUR v. CLIFFORD - 393 U.S. 1002 (1968)
U.S. Supreme Court MCARTHUR v. CLIFFORD , 393 U.S. 1002 (1968)

393 U.S. 1002

Thomas W. Mc ARTHUR et al., petitioners, v. Clark CLIFFORD, Secretary of Defense, et al.
No. 613.

Supreme Court of the United States

December 16, 1968

Philip J. Hirschkop, for petitioners. Solicitor General Griswold, for respondents.

Motions to dispense with printing petition and to amend petition granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.

I dissent from a denial of certiorari in this case. An important unresolved constitutional issue of immediate importance to many Americans is involved. It is whether men may be sent abroad to fight in a war which has not been declared by Congress. This is a point on which I wrote a rather elaborate dissent in Holmes v. United States, 391 U.S. 936 , and Hart v. United States, 391 U.S. 956 . This certainly is a substantial question and one which has never been resolved by this Court.

The question of the power of the President to conduct a war without a declaration of war was raised in the Prize Cases [The Amy Warwick], 2 Black 635, during the Civil War. That was an internal insurrection which would perhaps be analogous here if the Vietnamese were invading the United States.

It was a five-to-four decision, upholding Presidential power. Would it have been the same if Lincoln had had an expeditionary force fighting a 'war' overseas?

There should not be the slightest doubt but that whenever the Chief Executive of the country takes any citizen by the neck and either puts him in prison or subjects him to some ordeal or sends him overseas to fight in a war, the question is a justiciable one. To call issues of that kind 'political' would be to abdicate the judicial function which the Court honored in the midst of the Civil War in the Prize Cases.

The spectre of executive war-making is an ominous threat to our republican institutions. What can be done

Page 393 U.S. 1002 , 1003

in Vietnam can be done in many areas o this troubled world without debate or responsible public decision.

I would put the case down for argument and resolve this important constitutional problem.