Publius and state of emergency - Essay Example

For instance, when dealing with terrorists it is hard to draw a boundary between human rights violation the political stability of a nation. When a government declares a state of emergency due to an event, it has to move swiftly and effectively in averting it and containing its consequences with all possible means since such events are always detrimental to a large population of a country. Having understood state of emergency, it is safe to discuss theories that relates to the same, and the paper will explore Publius’s and Schmitt’s theories and determine which one among them is more vindicated by the case of Rasul versus Bush.

Publius coined a theory indicating that interest is the motive that derives the decisions and federalist’s behavior. Pablius describes the term interest, basically as the self desire to gain causing individuals to strive ceaselessly for possessions that guarantee their preservation and comfort (Eugene 32). Those who are appointed to leadership positions in the federal government should be people who understand the federalist’s interests and committed to defending them. This means that the federal constitution is designed in a manner that takes into consideration the federalist interests.

Those entrusted with the interpretation and implementation of constitution are expected to defend the interests of the federal government. Pablius argues that emphasis should not be placed on the character of the rulers but rather the arrangement of their passions and interests (Eugene 45). He observes that the constitution is meant to regulate and to protect the political interests of the nation. It follows that the judges in the federal government should ensure that their rulings do not jeopardize the political and national interests of United States.

State of emergency involves very serious matters, that a government concerns itself with, since they affect an enormous number of citizens either directly or indirectly. One of such events is terrorism and the federal judges must take into account the political, economic and social interests of America when handling cases related to terrorism. Carl Schmitt is another scholar who postulated a theory on the state of emergency. He argues that state of emergency entails the total suspension of the legal order in order to stabilize a country from detrimental occurrences like civil wars (Giorgio).

The suspension of the law is geared towards enhancing the welfare of human beings. There comes a time where the people’s lives are more precious that the law and legal procedures. It is not appropriate to follow the law when the process can jeopardize people’s lives. However, state of emergency should not be equated to a state of 1. See the political science reviewer by Eugene Miller for more Insight on Pablius theory on state of emergency lawlessness or anarchy since this is extreme, and in this arrangement, no one follows the law or takes responsibility for criminal acts exacerbated by the fact that there is no stable authority with robust will power to enact legislations.

Schmitt’s theory of the state of emergency is presented in the doctrine of sovereignty; the sovereign has the power to declare a state of emergency but is also obligated to ensure legal order prevails in a state (Giorgio). The sovereign authority is one that has been given the