John Marshall Harlan II

Name: New York Times v. United States — Dissenting Opinion
Author: John Marshall Harlan II

Summary

“New York Times v. United States — Dissenting Opinion”, is a work by John Marshall Harlan II. It explores elements such as the Court of Appeals, judiciary and litigation.

Quotes from New York Times v. United States… (John Marshall Harlan II)

John Marshall Harlan II, New York Times v. United States…

“ These are difficult questions of fact, of law, and of judgment; the potential consequences of erroneous decision are enormous. The time which has been available to us, to the lower courts, and to the parties has been wholly inadequate for giving these cases the kind of consideration they deserve. It is a reflection on the stability of the judicial process that these great issues — as important as any that have arisen during my time on the Court — should have been decided under the pressures engendered by the torrent of publicity that has attended these litigations from their inception. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, New York Times v. United States…

“ Whether the threat to publish highly secret documents is of itself a sufficient implication of national security to justify an injunction on the theory that, regardless of the contents of the documents, harm enough results simply from the demonstration of such a breach of secrecy. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, New York Times v. United States…

“ Even if there is some room for the judiciary to override the executive determination, it is plain that the scope of review must be exceedingly narrow. I can see no indication in the opinions of either the District Court or the Court of Appeals in the Post litigation that the conclusions of the Executive were given even the deference owing to an administrative agency, much less that owing to a co-equal branch of the Government operating within the field of its constitutional prerogative. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, New York Times v. United States…

“ Great cases, like hard cases, make bad law. For great cases are called great not by reason of their [p753] real importance in shaping the law of the future, but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment. These immediate interests exercise a kind of hydraulic pressure which makes what previously was clear seem doubtful, and before which even well settled principles of law will bend. With all respect, I consider that the Court has been almost irresponsibly feverish in dealing with these cases. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, New York Times v. United States…

“ But, in my judgment, the judiciary may not properly go beyond these two inquiries and redetermine for itself the probable impact of disclosure on the national security.
[T] he very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial. Such decisions [p758] are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, New York Times v. United States…

“ In a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, Chief Justice John Marshall, then a member of that body, stated:
The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, New York Times v. United States…

“ They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility, and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, New York Times v. United States…

“ Accordingly, I would vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on this ground, and remand the case for further proceedings in the District Court. Before the commencement of such further proceedings, due opportunity should be afforded the Government for procuring from the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense or both an expression of their views on the issue of national security. The ensuing review by the District Court should be in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion. ”

John Marshall Harlan II

Summary

Quotes from New York Times v. United States… (John Marshall Harlan II)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature