100%(13)13 out of 13 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 5 pages.
Application/AnalysisMrs. Covert argued that Article 2 (11) is supposed to be geographically restricted and thus military jurisdiction which was over her expired when she was returned to the United States.Additionally, she also argued that as a civilian, she was not supposed to be subjected to the code because under Article 2 (7) she was not in custody of the armed forces. The chief justice togetherwith the other two justices rejected the notion that the United States acts against those citizens who are abroad and that it can do without any restrictions from the Bill of Rights. They stated that United States is a creature of constitution entirely and in this regard, all the authority and power are derived from the constitution. Therefore, the United States can act according to the limitations which are imposed by the constitution. This, in a case where United States
government wants to punish a citizen who is out of the country, the shield which Bill of Rights together with other components of the constitution that seeks to protect his liberty and life are notsupposed to be ignored just for the mere reason that he or she is in another country (“Reid v. Covert Case Brief,” 2011).ConclusionAlthough majority of the courts concurred with the outcome, they did so for very different reasons. According to justice Felix Frankfurter making a ruling that Mrs. Covert trial and conviction were unconstitutional merely on the fact that she was not an armed forces member displayed too narrow a review. Justice Felix Frankfurter stated that the determination of this case necessitated the court to review the constitution thoroughly in its entirety instead of