NationStates Jolt Archive

Why am I going back home to America again?
Because that fucker is about to be out of a job permanently. And so is his piece of shit boss.

According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales anyway.

Gonzales says the Constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus
Attorney general's remarks on citizens' right astound the chair of Senate judiciary panel

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

One of the Bush administration's most far-reaching assertions of government power was revealed quietly last week when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified that habeas corpus -- the right to go to federal court and challenge one's imprisonment -- is not protected by the Constitution.

"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas,'' Gonzales told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17.

Gonzales acknowledged that the Constitution declares "habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless ... in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.'' But he insisted that "there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.''

Specter was incredulous, asking how the Constitution could bar the suspension of a right that didn't exist -- a right, he noted, that was first recognized in medieval England as a shield against the king's power to dispatch troublesome subjects to royal dungeons.

Later in the hearing, Gonzales described habeas corpus as "one of our most cherished rights'' and noted that Congress had protected that right in the 1789 law that established the federal court system. But he never budged from his position on the absence of constitutional protection -- a position that seemingly would leave Congress free to reduce habeas corpus rights or repeal them altogether.

Gonzales did not propose any such drastic rollback and devoted most of his discussion to fending off senatorial attacks on a law signed by President Bush last October. That law included a provision stripping federal courts of authority to hear habeas corpus suits by noncitizens classified by the government as "enemy combatants.'' Specter and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman, are sponsoring legislation to undo the restriction.

But critics on both ends of the ideological spectrum said the attorney general was claiming a broader and more chilling power.

"This is the key protection that people have if they're held in violation of the law,'' said Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University law professor who has criticized the administration's actions on civil liberties. "If there's no habeas corpus, and if the government wants to pick you or me off the street and hold us indefinitely, how do we get our release?''

Chemerinsky was joined by Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor and former Justice Department official under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

If Gonzales' view prevailed, Kmiec said, "one of the basic protections of human liberty against the powers of the state would be embarrassingly absent from our constitutional system.''

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said this week that Gonzales stood by his remarks but was asserting only that the text of the Constitution does not guarantee habeas corpus. The attorney general recognizes, Roehrkasse said, that the Supreme Court has declared "the Constitution protects (habeas corpus) as it existed at common law'' in England. Any such rights, he added, would not apply to foreigners held as enemy combatants.

Habeas corpus was recognized in English law at least as early as the Magna Carta, in 1215, and perhaps earlier. In the United States, it refers to bringing a prisoner's case before a federal judge, who has the power to order the government to release anyone who is being held illegally.

It has become an issue in Bush's efforts to hold military captives at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with little or no access to civilian courts. The Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that that those prisoners could file habeas corpus claims in court, rejecting the administration's argument that inmates held outside the United States had no such right. That ruling was based on the court's interpretation of laws passed by Congress and did not discuss whether Guantanamo inmates had a constitutional right to habeas corpus.

The distinction is potentially crucial, because Congress, in the law signed last October, prohibited federal courts from reviewing habeas corpus suits by Guantanamo prisoners or any other noncitizens held as enemy combatants. The law's validity depends on whether the Supreme Court concludes that the prisoners' constitutional rights are being violated.

The issue of habeas corpus came up during last week's hearing when Specter asked Gonzales how a congressional statute could withdraw the right "when there's an express constitutional provision that it can't be suspended and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees?''

The court ruled only on the right to habeas corpus that was created by statute, Gonzales replied. He then asserted that the Constitution does not contain any express right of habeas corpus, only "a prohibition against taking it away.''

The issue extends far beyond Guantanamo.

The Supreme Court has interpreted federal judges' powers of habeas corpus to apply to prison systems around the nation and the legality of convictions in state as well as federal court.

For example, federal judges, who are appointed for life, regularly invoke habeas corpus when overturning convictions or death sentences of state inmates, overruling decisions by elected state judges.

Bruce Fein, a former Reagan Justice Department attorney who has become an outspoken critic of the Bush administration, noted that the day before his Judiciary Committee appearance, Gonzales had denounced "activist judges'' and advised them to stay out of national security matters.

Gonzales' comments to the committee on habeas corpus, Fein said, contained a message that "Congress doesn't have to let them (judges) decide national security matters.''

"It's part of an attempt to create the idea that during conflicts, the three branches of government collapse into one, and it is the president,'' Fein said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Gonzales, Specter said
Excerpts from the exchange between Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17:

Gonzales: There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away. ...

Specter: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in cases of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's an invasion or rebellion?

Gonzales: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas. Doesn't say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except...

Specter: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

Source: Senate Judiciary Committee transcript
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/24/MNGDONO11O1.DTL

The logic used here astounds me. The Consitution says you can't suspend it, but that doesn't mean you actually have it? It's been reconized as one of the foundations of the US legal system, a fundemental right, but the AG and the Bush Administration feels that it can ignore it... What makes this more chilling is that AG Gonzales grouped citizens into the mix here. The argument could be made that non-US citizens/residents do not enjoy that protection, but he is trying to assert that the government can detain anyone it wants at will and does not have to answer to the courts because it was never a right granted by the Constitution.

Why am I going back home to America again?

Could this be double-think? Or are they really, really stupid?

Gonzales isn't stupid. This is a power-grab, plain and simple, which is par for the course for this administration.

Haha, brilliant.

"Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended" = yea, but it doesn't explicitly say the right exists.

Nice.

According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales anyway.


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/24/MNGDONO11O1.DTL

The logic used here astounds me. The Consitution says you can't suspend it, but that doesn't mean you actually have it? It's been reconized as one of the foundations of the US legal system, a fundemental right, but the AG and the Bush Administration feels that it can ignore it... What makes this more chilling is that AG Gonzales grouped citizens into the mix here. The argument could be made that non-US citizens/residents do not enjoy that protection, but he is trying to assert that the government can detain anyone it wants at will and does not have to answer to the courts because it was never a right granted by the Constitution.

Why am I going back home to America again?

It's sound legal reasoning. Just because the government can't suspend it doesn't necessarily mean it exists.

But it might. It would be useful to examine pre-American English common law (which does have weight in US courts) to see if the right exists.

That by far is the scariest shit that has come out of Bozo's administration.

Sweet Jesus, I'm actually afraid of what they will do.

Could this be double-think? Or are they really, really stupid?

Soooo... Where did Gonzales buy his law degree did you say?

Sadly that about is still two years away. *sighs* And given how long it took him to fire Rumsfield...

Well, I don't hold out much hope of impeachment of Bush, but the President isn't the only person who can be impeached, and I'd say Gonzales' reasoning on matters such as torture might certainly fall under "high crimes and misdemeanors." Throw in that some Republican Senators might look at this latest pronouncement and say "that fucker's out of his gourd" and who knows what's possible/

Because that fucker is about to be out of a job permanently. And so is his piece of shit boss.
Sadly that about is still two years away. *sighs* And given how long it took him to fire Rumsfield...

According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales anyway.


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/24/MNGDONO11O1.DTL

The logic used here astounds me. The Consitution says you can't suspend it, but that doesn't mean you actually have it? It's been reconized as one of the foundations of the US legal system, a fundemental right, but the AG and the Bush Administration feels that it can ignore it... What makes this more chilling is that AG Gonzales grouped citizens into the mix here. The argument could be made that non-US citizens/residents do not enjoy that protection, but he is trying to assert that the government can detain anyone it wants at will and does not have to answer to the courts because it was never a right granted by the Constitution.

Why am I going back home to America again?

Wait, your moving back here? When?

What a fucking dumbass.

Soooo... Where did Gonzales buy his law degree did you say?

No, he must have gone to some extremely high class place, you need to be well-trained to try and argue this much bullsh*t.

Wait, your moving back here? When?
August.

Seriously: WTH?!

This is apalling.

What about keeping with the original intent of the constitution?

I highly doubt our founding fathers would approve of AG Gonzales' interpretations.

It's sound legal reasoning. Just because the government can't suspend it doesn't necessarily mean it exists.

But it might. It would be useful to examine pre-American English common law (which does have weight in US courts) to see if the right exists.
Said right dates back to the 1200's under English common law (IIRC). And I fail to see how this is sound legal reasoning.

Gonzales isn't stupid. This is a power-grab, plain and simple, which is par for the course for this administration.

Look at the bright side. If it passes, the next president could take Bush and his whole cabinet, throw them in a basement somewhere and lose the key without ever having to bother about the courts or legality of the whole issue.

Now if only the next president has the guts to do that.

Watch him say it. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=YIFqYVAOosM)

So, who will try and defend the indefensible now?

Autarchy: guess you always had it.

"Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended" = yea, but it doesn't explicitly say the right exists.

Nice.

Wouldn't it implicitly state that it exists? Or were the founding fathers on crack?

So, who will try and defend the indefensible now?

There's absolutely nothing indefensible about what the Attorney General said.

There is no right to habeas corpus in the US Constitution, plain and simple. You left-wing kooks love inventing these imagined "rights" and imagining situations where they SUPPOSEDLY exist in the US Constitution.

This idea of "Habeas Corpus" is dangerous to our war effort. We need to be able to lock people up without trials and throw away the key if we're going to avert this terrorist threat. That's the only way to ensure that our brave American people can be kept alive.

Why do you liberal extremists invent these things? Why do you people hate our Country? Why do you hate our Constitution so much that you have to INVENT things you want to be in it?

No wonder Left-Wing Media sources like CNN and MSNBC are thriving, seeing as we have so many of you kooks running around. That's part of the PROBLEM with this country... it was founded by kooks like you guys.

This is why I trust Fox News for ALL of my truthiness needs. [/Colbertesque Satire]



On second thought, I guess it really doesn't get much more indefensible than this. Impeach this scum. :rolleyes:

(And yes. For the satirically impaired... I was mostly joking in this post. :sigh: )

Wouldn't it implicitly state that it exists? Or were the founding fathers on crack?

Ether, more like. Or maybe Laudanum.

Reolumina, I agree that he said the Constitutional right is not explicitly stated. He was right about that. However, he was arguing that the government's implementation of that right is not guaranteed, which I believe to be an incredibly dangerous interpretation.

Could this be double-think? Or are they really, really stupid?

This is a text book case of double-think!
Orwell would be proud (or horrified!)

Wouldn't it implicitly state that it exists? Or were the founding fathers on crack?

I like the way Colbert (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRTO2yC2VcY) put it last night: "Just because you want the Constitution to say something doesn't mean it does. Where is Senator Specter coming from, saying that there's a right to habeas corpus? It's like he's holding these truths to be self-evident!"

So, who will try and defend the indefensible now?

Nobody. Read your Kafka.

Orwell would be proud (or horrified!)

Or non-plussed, thinks I.

Out of interest, can't Gonzales' logic be applied to any article from the bill of rights?

I mean, it says congress can't make a law abridging free speech - but it never says anyone has a right to free speech. I guess that means it's okay to get rid of it.

Out of interest, can't Gonzales' logic be applied to any article from the bill of rights?

I mean, it says congress can't make a law abridging free speech - but it never says anyone has a right to free speech. I guess that means it's okay to get rid of it.

Sweet crap...

Out of interest, can't Gonzales' logic be applied to any article from the bill of rights?

I mean, it says congress can't make a law abridging free speech - but it never says anyone has a right to free speech. I guess that means it's okay to get rid of it.
Precisely. The man is getting ludicrously technical, like most political figures are wont to do from time to time. Thing is, these are our basic Constitutional rights we're talking about here. I just hope Congress has the foresight and the backbone to challenge this... repulsive line of reasoning.

Out of interest, can't Gonzales' logic be applied to any article from the bill of rights?

I mean, it says congress can't make a law abridging free speech - but it never says anyone has a right to free speech. I guess that means it's okay to get rid of it.

Yeah, I've been letting my mind wander down thattaway since I saw your post... all I can think is that yeah, I could see the argument being made - but the big question I've got is, in the name of everything everybody has ever held dear, why? Why do such a thing? Which of course leads me to wonder just who stands to gain from such a turn of events? And then again, why aren't these people being rounded up before they can pull it off?

I don't know about you, but I'm spreading word about this. I'm not sure exactly what authority Gonzales's testimony has on this matter (Is it precedent? Can someone overrule him? Is it just hot air?), but the fact that the Administration is even *considering* this argument valid is frightening.

That's oldthink! The Republican Party is doubleplus good!

Yeah, I've been letting my mind wander down thattaway since I saw your post... all I can think is that yeah, I could see the argument being made - but the big question I've got is, in the name of everything everybody has ever held dear, why? Why do such a thing? Which of course leads me to wonder just who stands to gain from such a turn of events? And then again, why aren't these people being rounded up before they can pull it off?
I don't know about you, but I'm spreading word about this. I'm not sure exactly what authority Gonzales's testimony has on this matter (Is it precedent? Can someone overrule him? Is it just hot air?), but the fact that the Administration is even *considering* this argument valid is frightening.

I don't know about you, but I'm spreading word about this. I'm not sure exactly what authority Gonzales's testimony has on this matter (Is it precedent? Can someone overrule him? Is it just hot air?), but the fact that the Administration is even *considering* this argument valid is frightening.

Gonzales is the Attorney General of the United States, and as such is the head of the Department of Justice.

He is an attorney. To be more precise he is the chief attorney for the United States of America, and is the chief representative in all legal matters involving the federal government, both criminal and civil.

Now, the good news is, he's an attorney, not a judge. His words have no legal precidential value what so ever. It's not binding, it's not authoratative, he has no power to enforce his legal arguments, they are just that, arguments, not rulings.

However it is more than simple hot air. As the AG he representes the legal interests of the government, and his claim about habeus corpus could represent the arguments that the government is preparing to adopt in court. In other words it is a "we the executive believe thus, and are going to argue that point of view in court".

*snip*
Huh, well. That puts me a bit at ease. Thing is, how often have Bush's policies faced any successful court challenge? Most of the time he manages to maneuver around any potential legal checks and keeps his dirty practices out of judicial scrutiny. Hell, even that Supreme Court case (Hamdi?) ended in a weak "compromise" that gave Bush pretty much what he wanted anyway.

Har. Well you know the Constitution doesn't say that you can't murder someone. It just says they have a right to life and the pursuit of happiness! These are two different things, obviously!

Out of interest, can't Gonzales' logic be applied to any article from the bill of rights?

I mean, it says congress can't make a law abridging free speech - but it never says anyone has a right to free speech. I guess that means it's okay to get rid of it.

U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief.

That covers it I believe... :)

Poetic justice anyone? OK, that's just rubbing it in. My sympathies. Really.

Har. Well you know the Constitution doesn't say that you can't murder someone. It just says they have a right to life and the pursuit of happiness! These are two different things, obviously!In that case, I humbly suggest you start the killing spree?

Actually, if you want to get technical, the exact text of the Amendment is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Administration's argument states that, because the Constitution only prohibits the removal of habeas corpus rights (and never explicitly states the existence of those rights in the first place), that those rights do not exist.

This argument would work the same way on good old Amendment I. "Well, it does say that Congress cannot make a law abridging the freedom of speech, but it doesn't actually say that that right exists in the first place, so it doesn't matter either way."

Yes, but I believe the founders considered the freedom of speech a basic right as many other basic human rights. Don't think they needed to be spelled out they were implied that a person had them to begin with.

In that case, I humbly suggest you start the killing spree?

I will, I just need to narrow my list of targets down to something reasonable, like in the millions.

U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief.

That covers it I believe... :)

Actually, if you want to get technical, the exact text of the Amendment is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Administration's argument states that, because the Constitution only prohibits the removal of habeas corpus rights (and never explicitly states the existence of those rights in the first place), that those rights do not exist.

This argument would work the same way on good old Amendment I. "Well, it does say that Congress cannot make a law abridging the freedom of speech, but it doesn't actually say that that right exists in the first place, so it doesn't matter either way."

Har. Well you know the Constitution doesn't say that you can't murder someone. It just says they have a right to life and the pursuit of happiness! These are two different things, obviously!

Well, technically, the constitution doesn't ban murder, that's a state thing.
And the declaration of independance is life and the pursuit of happiness, not the constitution.
Sorry to ruin your fun there:p.

Gonzales is the Attorney General of the United States, and as such is the head of the Department of Justice.

He is an attorney. To be more precise he is the chief attorney for the United States of America, and is the chief representative in all legal matters involving the federal government, both criminal and civil.

Now, the good news is, he's an attorney, not a judge. His words have no legal precidential value what so ever. It's not binding, it's not authoratative, he has no power to enforce his legal arguments, they are just that, arguments, not rulings.

However it is more than simple hot air. As the AG he representes the legal interests of the government, and his claim about habeus corpus could represent the arguments that the government is preparing to adopt in court. In other words it is a "we the executive believe thus, and are going to argue that point of view in court".

The question then is "Who enforces the courts decisions?"... The Courts have no power of enforcement... that goes to...(Remember your 8th grade civics, friends!)... the executive branch.

Jesus mother of Christ, we're all gonna die!

Seriously, though, this is pretty pathetic. Boy I wish Gore had won(You know-like he did) in 2000, I wonder how things would have turned out? Bah. Another reason to hate Bush. I'm starting to run out of paper to write on.

The question then is "Who enforces the courts decisions?"... The Courts have no power of enforcement... that goes to...(Remember your 8th grade civics, friends!)... the executive branch.

Jesus mother of Christ, we're all gonna die!

Seriously, though, this is pretty pathetic. Boy I wish Gore had won(You know-like he did) in 2000, I wonder how things would have turned out? Bah. Another reason to hate Bush. I'm starting to run out of paper to write on.

yes yes, "the court has made it's decision now let it enforce it" line, I know.

The problem is SCOTUS interprets the constitution. To go against SCOTUS' decision is to violate the consitution, which for a president is to violate his oath of office, and gives ground for impeachment.

Now I know what you're going to say is "well what if he just doesn't step down", well sure a president CAN turn into a dictator, but the same can be said for any natio, the rule of law only has force as long as those who can exercise force chose to enforce it.

But that can be said for any country.

I will, I just need to narrow my list of targets down to something reasonable, like in the millions.

I know someone who could hook you up.

No, he must have gone to some extremely high class place, you need to be well-trained to try and argue this much bullsh*t.

Bush wasn't well trained and still uses the same bullsh*t publicly and on a regular basis.
I'm kinda surprised that potty-training even took.

Nobody. Read your Kafka.

NIIIIIIIIIIIIIICE!!! :D

Bush wasn't well trained and still uses the same bullsh*t publicly and on a regular basis.
I'm kinda surprised that potty-training even took.

Why do you do this?

No, really. Why DO you do this??

I was here, at peace, in my home, and you forced down my mind the image of Bush taking a sh*t.

What have I ever done to you??? :(

:D

There's absolutely nothing indefensible about what the Attorney General said.

There is no right to habeas corpus in the US Constitution, plain and simple. You left-wing kooks love inventing these imagined "rights" and imagining situations where they SUPPOSEDLY exist in the US Constitution.

This idea of "Habeas Corpus" is dangerous to our war effort. We need to be able to lock people up without trials and throw away the key if we're going to avert this terrorist threat. That's the only way to ensure that our brave American people can be kept alive.

Why do you liberal extremists invent these things? Why do you people hate our Country? Why do you hate our Constitution so much that you have to INVENT things you want to be in it?

No wonder Left-Wing Media sources like CNN and MSNBC are thriving, seeing as we have so many of you kooks running around. That's part of the PROBLEM with this country... it was founded by kooks like you guys.

This is why I trust Fox News for ALL of my truthiness needs. [/Colbertesque Satire]



On second thought, I guess it really doesn't get much more indefensible than this. Impeach this scum. :rolleyes:

(And yes. For the satirically impaired... I was mostly joking in this post. :sigh: )

You're good! For a second there you had me going! :D

Let's see just how much the administration enjoys pushing the envelope...

Patriot Act: First off, it was passed in very little time by those lapdogs in Congress. Second off, it's borderline unconstitutional. Nice testing ground for what the adminstration can get away with. Push a little bit.

Iraq: Well, there's no American law or treaty that says we couldn't do it. However, the war went ahead with scattered international support and no help from the UN. Never mind the UN's capabilities here, whatever those are, but Bush showed that he has no skills in diplomacy with this move. And yet he's hailed as a hero.

No WMD OR al-Qaeda connections - BOTH reasons were touted as why we should invade Iraq. Neither proved to be true, but there are many in America who still believe them to be true. Bush can ADMIT he fucked up and the right-wing Americans will STILL believe the best about him.

Offshoring - not Bush's fault, but the current laws favor businesses that actually REMOVE jobs from America. What has Bush done about it? Played up other issues. You don't need that job; you need to ban abortion, ban homosexuality, and fight terrorism. God told me so. And people bought it.

Wiretapping - it was blatantly illegal without a warrant. But getting a warrant was too "time-consuming." Right, because we don't really want the courts to be privy to what we're trying to do. There are laws for a reason, yet Bush skirts them and gets away with it.

And now, no habeas corpus - yes, the issue of detainees has been in the news for a while. Yes, there are people unhappy about it. And of course Bush has gotten away with it. No one cares enough to fight it. Just like no one will care when habeas corpus is declared never to have existed.

Now that Bush has defied the law on numerous occasions (blatantly, I might add,) the worst case is that he's setting the stage to defy the Constitution and decide to become President for life. It would be unlikely to work, sure, but why not just give it a shot? Best case, he's president for life; worst case, he's Nixon Part II. His reputation can't get any worse.

Why do you do this?

No, really. Why DO you do this??

I was here, at peace, in my home, and you forced down my mind the image of Bush taking a sh*t.

What have I ever done to you??? :(

:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkP-H-nWCII

Technically, he's right in that the Constitution doesn't expressly grant Habeas Corpus, but at the same time the Consitituion was framed to mean that we have that right by implication... so in the spirit of the law, he's wrong.

What frightens me is that it would become an issue. If he agrees that it's an implied and basic right, then why argue so strenuously about whether it's explicitly spelled out in the Constitution?

What I'd like to see are a couple of Constitutional Ammendments to head this crap off.

I was listening the other night to a Conservative radio personality (Mark Levin) and he insisted that a bunch of the things (like wiretapping and such) were done by Roosevelt during WWII and nobody complained then. He argues that holding prisoners without trial was done by the Government during the Civil War under Lincoln. Based on that, he argued that th eonly reason to disagree with Bush doing it was if you just hate Bush.

I disagree with that. Just because Roosevelt and Lincoln did this stuff doesn't make it right. It was wrong when they did it, and it's wrong now.

Habeas Corpus can be suspended but only by Congress unless of course we are in a state of Emergency. After all, Lincoln did it without Congressional approval and ignored the Supreme Court on the issue.

Even FDR ignored Habeas Corpus when he ordered the rounding up of Japanese Civilians and placed them in internment camps. *shudders*

Soooo... Where did Gonzales buy his law degree did you say?

In reality, precedent.

This is apalling.

What about keeping with the original intent of the constitution?

I highly doubt our founding fathers would approve of AG Gonzales' interpretations.

I'm sure they'll disapprove of many interpretations as we have now.

Technically, he's right in that the Constitution doesn't expressly grant Habeas Corpus, but at the same time the Consitituion was framed to mean that we have that right by implication... so in the spirit of the law, he's wrong.

What frightens me is that it would become an issue. If he agrees that it's an implied and basic right, then why argue so strenuously about whether it's explicitly spelled out in the Constitution?

What I'd like to see are a couple of Constitutional Ammendments to head this crap off.

I was listening the other night to a Conservative radio personality (Mark Levin) and he insisted that a bunch of the things (like wiretapping and such) were done by Roosevelt during WWII and nobody complained then. He argues that holding prisoners without trial was done by the Government during the Civil War under Lincoln. Based on that, he argued that th eonly reason to disagree with Bush doing it was if you just hate Bush.

I disagree with that. Just because Roosevelt and Lincoln did this stuff doesn't make it right. It was wrong when they did it, and it's wrong now.

Isn't there something in your constitution that says "just because it's not written here doesn't mean it's not a right", only in more legal language?

Wouldn't it implicitly state that it exists? Or were the founding fathers on crack?

Article I Section 9.2 statets: The privilege of the Writ of Haeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless when in Cases of REbellion or Inavsion the public Safety may require it.

There ya have it.

There's absolutely nothing indefensible about what the Attorney General said.

There is no right to habeas corpus in the US Constitution, plain and simple.

Article 1 section 9.2 disagrees with you. Thanks for playing however.

The Administration's argument states that, because the Constitution only prohibits the removal of habeas corpus rights (and never explicitly states the existence of those rights in the first place), that those rights do not exist.

Which is wrong for if it is forbidden to be removed by Congress then the law of implyment enters into effect that we do indeed have a right to Habeas Corpus.

Habeas Corpus can be suspended but only by Congress unless of course we are in a state of Emergency. After all, Lincoln did it without Congressional approval and ignored the Supreme Court on the issue.


This is the core of the entire arguement. If in fact its a defacto Constitutional right then congress CAN NOT be suspended by Congress, even if they wanted to, for any reason other than Rebellion or Invasion. The opposite arguement is that the Constitution does not expressly grant this right it just expressly defines its parameters (if) its permitted by Congress.

Isn't there something in your constitution that says "just because it's not written here doesn't mean it's not a right", only in more legal language?

Yeah it basically says that any power not explicitly granted to the Federal Government is assumed to be held by the individual States, and traditionally, rights have been viewed in the same way.

This is the core of the entire arguement. If in fact its a defacto Constitutional right then congress CAN NOT be suspended by Congress, even if they wanted to, for any reason other than Rebellion or Invasion. The opposite arguement is that the Constitution does not expressly grant this right it just expressly defines its parameters (if) its permitted by Congress.

Ironicly, the President can end a session of Congress and convene Congress at his will. That is in Article 2 of the Constitution.

Habeas Corpus can not be suspended unless we are in a State of Emergency. Now the question one can ask is, who can suspend it? Congress or the President?

I think if Alberto Gonzales said that in a room full of the framers and the signers of the Constitution, they'd take turns kicking him in the nuts and then throw him into the river. :)

Yeah it basically says that any power not explicitly granted to the Federal Government is assumed to be held by the individual States, and traditionally, rights have been viewed in the same way.

Amendments 9 and 10.

To be fair to FDR, I don't think he did so with disapproval from the other two branches of government. We know Lincoln ignored the other branches of government. That wasn't cool. But I doubt that Congress and the Supreme Court were losing any sleep over Japanese internment.

Probably not but it was still done.

Habeas Corpus can be suspended but only by Congress unless of course we are in a state of Emergency. After all, Lincoln did it without Congressional approval and ignored the Supreme Court on the issue.

Even FDR ignored Habeas Corpus when he ordered the rounding up of Japanese Civilians and placed them in internment camps. *shudders*

To be fair to FDR, I don't think he did so with disapproval from the other two branches of government. We know Lincoln ignored the other branches of government. That wasn't cool. But I doubt that Congress and the Supreme Court were losing any sleep over Japanese internment.

Discourse analysis 101: If someone is stating that you can't abolish habeas corpus, that someone is, by pressuposition, OBVIOUSLY stating that habeas corpus EXISTS. The SAME goes to the Constitution.

Discourse analysis 101: If someone is stating that you can't abolish habeas corpus, that someone is, by pressuposition, OBVIOUSLY stating that habeas corpus EXISTS. The SAME goes to the Constitution.

since when has logic and rationality been part of this administration?

since when has logic and rationality been part of this administration?

Point.

Probably not but it was still done.

Therefore, the argument has nothing to do with the principal of habeas corpus in the Constitution, since FDR suspended it within the rules. He still suspended it (and there is still disagreement over how much harm it really did to this day) but at least he acknowledged its existence. Precedent dictates, in this case, that we do have habeas corpus.

Therefore, between Lincoln, FDR, and Dubya, the third-worst habeas corpus violator is FDR. Take your pick between the others as to who's worst...Lincoln for suspending it or Bush for denying it.

Therefore, the argument has nothing to do with the principal of habeas corpus in the Constitution, since FDR suspended it within the rules.

Did he? We were not invaded by the Japanese. Attacked yes but not invaded. Nor were they uprising against the Federal Government. Most of the people that went into internment were born in the United States. So was it within the rules?

He still suspended it (and there is still disagreement over how much harm it really did to this day) but at least he acknowledged its existence. Precedent dictates, in this case, that we do have habeas corpus.

Yes we do and we paid compensation to the Japanese for putting them there and stating we should not have done that. They even admitted that.

Therefore, between Lincoln, FDR, and Dubya, the third-worst habeas corpus violator is FDR. Take your pick between the others as to who's worst...Lincoln for suspending it or Bush for denying it.

Lincoln did it without Congressional Approval. So by right, he was the worst followed by FDR who used it against Japanese-Americans (and for the record, I hate hyphens like that). So far, Bush is primarily using it on those who are charged under terrorism and on foriegners to boot.

I think if Alberto Gonzales said that in a room full of the framers and the signers of the Constitution, they'd take turns kicking him in the nuts and then throw him into the river. :)

that depends, to some extent the AG would be view by the Federalists as a genius, since they did value strict reading on the Constitution.

that depends, to some extent the AG would be view by the Federalists as a genius, since they did value strict reading on the Constitution.

Yes, some of them did but I suspect that the reason habeas corpus is not explicitly laid out in the text is that they thought it was such a fundamental right as not not need mentioning, except to say that the government can't suspend it except in case of war and rebellion. Never know, of course, since they're all dead.

eep!

Yes, some of them did but I suspect that the reason habeas corpus is not explicitly laid out in the text is that they thought it was such a fundamental right as not not need mentioning, except to say that the government can't suspend it except in case of war and rebellion. Never know, of course, since they're all dead.

Point taken. I guess maybe if a situation like this happend in 1792 then they would either add it or we would have an idea that it's a no-brainer. but yeah, they're dead.

Well, I'm not worried. This President is going to be tossed out on his ass soon anyway.

Well, I'm not worried. This President is going to be tossed out on his ass soon anyway.

Not tossed, he'll leave the building to a chorus of praises from conservative pundits everywhere, off to read picture books to children in his presidential library, and as the years pass people will try to make him into a senior statesman of some kind. It'll be disgusting.

Lincoln did it without Congressional Approval. So by right, he was the worst followed by FDR who used it against Japanese-Americans (and for the record, I hate hyphens like that). So far, Bush is primarily using it on those who are charged under terrorism and on foriegners to boot.
Of course an argument can be made that Lincoln was dealing with an actual rebellon, but IIRC, only Congress can suspend the writ, though I think the president can declare martial law.

Either way Lincoln and FDR were wrong and President Bush is wrong now. Wthat does scare me, as I noted in my OP, is that the administration is holding the view that citizens are not granted it either. So far the US citizens charged as being enemy combatants (Remember them?) have had the writ's protection (so says the courts), but it looks like President Bush wants to strip that right away and try to force the courts out of the issue.

That's what scares me, he wants to get a "I don't like you so go away" card to be played at will with no way to check him.

Not tossed, he'll leave the building to a chorus of praises from conservative pundits everywhere, off to read picture books to children in his presidential library, and as the years pass people will try to make him into a senior statesman of some kind. It'll be disgusting.

I hope you're wrong, Farny. I hope you're wrong.

Actually, if you want to get technical, the exact text of the Amendment is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Administration's argument states that, because the Constitution only prohibits the removal of habeas corpus rights (and never explicitly states the existence of those rights in the first place), that those rights do not exist.

This argument would work the same way on good old Amendment I. "Well, it does say that Congress cannot make a law abridging the freedom of speech, but it doesn't actually say that that right exists in the first place, so it doesn't matter either way."
That's a false analogy. Freedom of speech is something everyone naturally has, because you have the power to say anything you want.

But, habeus corpus requires you be provided with something. Because it entails an obligation on someone else's part (the government), it only exists if it's been granted to you.

That's a false analogy. Freedom of speech is something everyone naturally has, because you have the power to say anything you want.
True, but the ability to speak is not freedom to speak. You can only say what you like so far as you're allowed to by the government, which can exercise its power to suppress whatever speech it doesn't like.

But, habeus corpus requires you be provided with something. Because it entails an obligation on someone else's part (the government), it only exists if it's been granted to you.
Freedom of speech entails an obligation on the government to not exercise its power in any way that restricts speech. Both habeus corpus and freedom of speech put certain obligations on the government, the only real difference is the nature of the obligation.

Well, I'm not worried. This President is going to be tossed out on his ass soon anyway.

He still has 2 years left in office Kyronea.

Of course an argument can be made that Lincoln was dealing with an actual rebellon, but IIRC, only Congress can suspend the writ, though I think the president can declare martial law.

Which he did in Maryland. However he did not do so throughout the land.

Did this dumbfuck even go to law school? I mean, was he dropped on his head as a baby? Dude, even that wouldn't explain it. I'll rephrase that question:

WAS HE BASHED INTO A WALL REPEATEDLY UNTIL HIS GRAY MATTER SPILLED OUT, HAD A SHOTGUN FIRED REPEATEDLY INTO HIS STOMACH, AND THEN DRAGGED 7 MILES BY A DONKEY ON SPEED AS A BABY?

I hope you're wrong, Farny. I hope you're wrong.

He isn't. The dems promised to launch impeachment when they took over and so far, they have not done so. I doubt they will too.

Freedom of speech entails an obligation on the government to not exercise its power in any way that restricts speech. Both habeus corpus and freedom of speech put certain obligations on the government, the only real difference is the nature of the obligation.
I can't believe you just wrote that.

"Freedom of speech entails an obligation on the government to not exercise its power in any way that restricts speech."

That's not doing something. Actually restricting speech is something they're prohibited from doing.

But with habeus corpus, it doesn't exist unless the government does something. That's entirely at the other end of the spectrum.

I can't believe you just wrote that.

"Freedom of speech entails an obligation on the government to not exercise its power in any way that restricts speech."

That's not doing something. Actually restricting speech is something they're prohibited from doing.

So, prohibiting an action isn't doing something? How so? By preventing power from being exercised in the realm of restricting speech, freedom of speech is created.

But with habeus corpus, it doesn't exist unless the government does something. That's entirely at the other end of the spectrum.

Freedom of speech doesn't exist without the government doing something, either. Specifically, refraining from suppressing speech.

Did this dumbfuck even go to law school? I mean, was he dropped on his head as a baby? Dude, even that wouldn't explain it. I'll rephrase that question:

WAS HE BASHED INTO A WALL REPEATEDLY UNTIL HIS GRAY MATTER SPILLED OUT, HAD A SHOTGUN FIRED REPEATEDLY INTO HIS STOMACH, AND THEN DRAGGED 7 MILES BY A DONKEY ON SPEED AS A BABY?

No!!!

He was BASHED INTO A WALL REPEATEDLY UNTIL HIS GRAY MATTER SPILLED OUT, HAD A SHOTGUN FIRED REPEATEDLY INTO HIS HEAD, AND THEN DRAGGED 7 MILES BY A DONKEY ON SPEED AS A BABY!

Okay?

Stop confusing things. :p

He isn't. The dems promised to launch impeachment when they took over and so far, they have not done so. I doubt they will too.

I'd like to see even one link that confirms the bolded statement.

...I won't hold my breath.

Out of interest, can't Gonzales' logic be applied to any article from the bill of rights?

I mean, it says congress can't make a law abridging free speech - but it never says anyone has a right to free speech. I guess that means it's okay to get rid of it.

DON'T give them any ideas!

That's a false analogy. Freedom of speech is something everyone naturally has, because you have the power to say anything you want.

But, habeus corpus requires you be provided with something. Because it entails an obligation on someone else's part (the government), it only exists if it's been granted to you.

Then why, pray tell, does the Constitution expressly forbid suspension of habeus corpus if, as the AG claims, the right doesn't exist?

Then why, pray tell, does the Constitution expressly forbid suspension of habeus corpus if, as the AG claims, the right doesn't exist?

Exactly. It's pretty damn hard to suspend a right you don't have.

I can't believe you just wrote that.

"Freedom of speech entails an obligation on the government to not exercise its power in any way that restricts speech."

That's not doing something. Actually restricting speech is something they're prohibited from doing.

But with habeus corpus, it doesn't exist unless the government does something. That's entirely at the other end of the spectrum.

Are you trying to defend this?

Are you trying to defend this?

Maybe he's actually Gonzales.

I'd like to see even one link that confirms the bolded statement.

...I won't hold my breath.

It was hinted at buy several Dems but Pelosi said that it was off the table. Other dems do want it and some don't.

So in light of that, I shall withdraw that comment for now.

So, prohibiting an action isn't doing something?
No. Failing to prohibit it isn't doing something.
Freedom of speech doesn't exist without the government doing something, either. Specifically, refraining from suppressing speech.
Again, no. Freedom of speech exists a priori. You have it before the government even exists.

The right to habeus corpus, however, doesn't exist until the government does something. It fails to exist a priori. And that's the relevant distinction.
Then why, pray tell, does the Constitution expressly forbid suspension of habeus corpus if, as the AG claims, the right doesn't exist?
That's completely irrelevant.

The constitution forbids the suspension of habeus. That's all it does. That you're inferring from that that habeus exists is a non sequitur. Nothing about the prohibition on suspension requires that habeus is real.

If the law prohibited the harvesting of trees in an area, does that necessarily require there ARE trees in that area? If the trees all died, would the law magically vanish?
Exactly. It's pretty damn hard to suspend a right you don't have.
That makes the passage extraneous. There's no reason the constitution can't contain extraneous passages.
Are you trying to defend this?
I'm arguing that what he said isn't necessarily absurd.

It's likely to be incredibly unpopular, especially since you folks in this thread have about as much logical training as the average American (none), so they'll draw the same insane conclusions you have.

No. Failing to prohibit it isn't doing something.

Again, no. Freedom of speech exists a priori. You have it before the government even exists.

The right to habeus corpus, however, doesn't exist until the government does something. It fails to exist a priori. And that's the relevant distinction.

That's completely irrelevant.

The constitution forbids the suspension of habeus. That's all it does. That you're inferring from that that habeus exists is a non sequitur. Nothing about the prohibition on suspension requires that habeus is real.

If the law prohibited the harvesting of trees in an area, does that necessarily require there ARE trees in that area? If the trees all died, would the law magically vanish?

That makes the passage extraneous. There's no reason the constitution can't contain extraneous passages.

I'm arguing that what he said isn't necessarily absurd.

It's likely to be incredibly unpopular, especially since you folks in this thread have about as much logical training as the average American (none), so they'll draw the same insane conclusions you have.

That may be the most asinine thing I've ever heard. Why would the Constitution forbid suspension of an imaginary right? Indeed, why mention it at all? And yes, if there are no trees in an area, then a law forbidding cutting them down is irrelevant. Furthermore, you can't just unilaterally declare that something doesn't exist a priori simply because you find it inconvenient. Laws exist to protect people from being treated like chattel; not to allow you to power trip, or give you a warm fuzzy feeling. The Constitution can not be turned on and off at whim.The right to free speech that you hide behind in order to exercise your God-given right to make a complete ass of yourself is absolute: it's always there, like it or not. Habeas Corpus exists as well, like it or not. I don't for one minute buy your arguement of there being "extraneous passages" in the Constitution. Who are you to decide that? Lastly, I suggest that in the future, you read your own posts before accusing others of reaching insane conclusions.

The constitution forbids the suspension of habeus. That's all it does. That you're inferring from that that habeus exists is a non sequitur. Nothing about the prohibition on suspension requires that habeus is real.

By that logic, you would think a law made by congress establishing a speed limit for faeries' flight would pass, right? Faeries don't exist, neither does habeas corpus, but that doesn't prevent them from being regulated by law...

Why would the Constitution forbid suspension of an imaginary right?
I don't care why they would. But there's no reason why they can't, which is what's being asserted by those opposing Gonzales.
Indeed, why mention it at all?
Now you're questioning their intent, and I don't think that's knowable, much less relevant.
And yes, if there are no trees in an area, then a law forbidding cutting them down is irrelevant.
But it might still exist.
Habeas Corpus exists as well, like it or not.
That's also not relevant to the issue at hand. The constitutional prohibition on suspending habeus corpus does not guarantee that habeus corpus is a granted right.

I'm making a very fine point, here. You don't seem to get it.
I don't for one minute buy your arguement of there being "extraneous passages" in the Constitution. Who are you to decide that?
I don't need to decide it. I'm not insisting that the constitution contains extraneous passages. I'm denying others' claims that it can't.
I suggest that in the future, you read your own posts before accusing others of reaching insane conclusions.
My conclusions are the only reasonable conclusions in this thread.
By that logic, you would think a law made by congress establishing a speed limit for faeries' flight would pass, right? Faeries don't exist, neither does habeas corpus, but that doesn't prevent them from being regulated by law...
I see no reason why they couldn't. And, again, that's been my point.

That's also not relevant to the issue at hand. The constitutional prohibition on suspending habeus corpus does not guarantee that habeus corpus is a granted right.
The written Constitution is not the only source of Constitutional power and/or rights. Coming from Canada, you should know that better than most.

No!!!

He was BASHED INTO A WALL REPEATEDLY UNTIL HIS GRAY MATTER SPILLED OUT, HAD A SHOTGUN FIRED REPEATEDLY INTO HIS HEAD, AND THEN DRAGGED 7 MILES BY A DONKEY ON SPEED AS A BABY!

Okay?

Stop confusing things. :p

My bad.

The written Constitution is not the only source of Constitutional power and/or rights. Coming from Canada, you should know that better than most.

Wait, Llewdor is Canadian? No offence to the Canadians on the forum, but who does this guy think he is, lecturing us on our Constitution? I wouldn't presume to know your laws better than you, so where does he get off doing so, setting aside the fact that his assertions are bat-shit insane?

"Why don't the Dems impeach the president?" you ask? Well, maybe they're too busy undermining him by doing all sorts of little (and not so little) practical things that rub him the wrong way by actually benefiting America instead of dragging our country into a divisive, time-wasting, and dubiously successful impeachment trial. A president has never been ousted by impeachment, and, however much Bush may deserve it, he wouldn't be ousted, either. So, the Democrats are simply dismantling his political legacy and replacing it with something vastly superior, such as ethics, the environment, social programs, etc. I'm kind of concerned by their Iraq proposal, though. I don't think either a withdrawal or a small troop increase will help anything. We need a huge troop increase, a treaty-catalyzed balkanization process, and an intensive construction effort. Then we'll end up with a state of semi-stability somewhat resembling modern Israel, only without the Jews. But the Democratic proposal will abandon the entire region to chaos and collapse, and Bush's proposal will produce the same outcome only with more American deaths. The Saudi regime is on the verge of collapse, Lebanon is being torn by corruption and Syrian puppetry, Palestine still doesn't have a state, Iran is getting bullish, and Turkey is trying to get the hell out (by joining the EU). So, in short, it's not exactly going to be a walk in the park. When the oil starts to run out, it will be put up or shut up time. If we can plan ahead and start the peaceful transition now (which will be based on dismantling the culture of corruption that dominates the local politics and truly opening the region to the global market), then the Middle East can be brought out of the medieval period without too many additional snags. If we keep acting like conquistadors, letting dirty money beat clean, or abandon the region to its fate, not only will our economy and security be at risk, but so will our image and our collective conscience.

:mp5:

"Sweet Jesus mother of Christ!" you say? Well, that would make Him His own mother, which makes my head hurt just trying to figure out the biology and causality. Of course, He's Jesus, so I guess He could do anything. If impregnating Himself to ensure His own existence was all part of God's plan for us, then I guess it just had to work out somehow. I wonder if He had to pay Himself child support for Himself? But, I digress...

I see no reason why they couldn't (legislate the speed limit at which faeries fly). And, again, that's been my point.

Ooookaaaaay...

I'm done here. Really.

So. Anyone wanna imagine a world if another Bush takes power?

So. Anyone wanna imagine a world if another Bush takes power?

Well, would Bush start legislating that you can't magically turn people into newts? Because that's what Llewdor suggested...

Wait, Llewdor is Canadian? No offence to the Canadians on the forum, but who does this guy think he is, lecturing us on our Constitution? I wouldn't presume to know your laws better than you, so where does he get off doing so, setting aside the fact that his assertions are bat-shit insane?
Because logical arguments know no national boundaries.

Freedom of speech exists a priori.

no it doesn't

Because logical arguments know no national boundaries.

To go back to my original comment on you (stupid remark about "who do you think you are lecturing us on our constitution aside)...why would you, coming from a nation with a largely unwritten Constitution, assume that habeas corpus is not Constitutionally guaranteed simply because it hasn't been written?

Llewdor?

To go back to my original comment on you (stupid remark about "who do you think you are lecturing us on our constitution aside)...why would you, coming from a nation with a largely unwritten Constitution, assume that habeus corpus is not Constitutionally guaranteed simply because it hasn't been written?
I never claimed habeus corpus hadn't been guaranteed. I'm only saying it's not guaranteed by the passage that prohibits its suspension, which is exactly the point Gonzales was making.

He didn't say people don't have habeus. He said maybe they don't, and that that passage didn't give it to them. That doesn't preclude them having it by some other means.

no it doesn't
Sure it does, because the only way you lose it is if someone takes it away from you (by prohibiting certain types of speech, like the way Canada prohibits hate literature or Germany prohibits holocaust denial).

I never claimed habeus corpus hadn't been guaranteed. I'm only saying it's not guaranteed by the passage that prohibits its suspension, which is exactly the point Gonzales was making.

He didn't say people don't have habeus. He said maybe they don't, and that that passage didn't give it to them. That doesn't preclude them having it by some other means. But it seems fairly clear that he's going beyond just suggesting that 'maybe they don't'.

As for 'maybe they don't'...I honestly don't see how anyone could seriously entertain the idea, considering how entrenched this concept is in the commonlaw.

Sure it does, because the only way you lose it is if someone takes it away from you (by prohibiting certain types of speech, like the way Canada prohibits hate literature or Germany prohibits holocaust denial).

free speech does not mean 'ability to speak'. and even if it did, that does not exist a priori.

I actually follow this logic.

If the law said lollypops shall not be witheld from the public, it dosen't mean that everyone deserves lollypops.

I actually follow this logic.

If the law said lollypops shall not be witheld from the public, it dosen't mean that everyone deserves lollypops.

I completely agree!

*Steals Soyut's lollypop. Cackles.*

:D

Now, for real.

In this one case, the law DOES grant the right to habeas corpus. I don't think anyone's ever said that, but habeas corpus are not lollipops.

I completely agree!

*Steals Soyut's lollypop. Cackles.*

:D

Now, for real.

In this one case, the law DOES grant the right to habeas corpus. I don't think anyone's ever said that, but habeas corpus are not lollipops.

allright, time to get my Charms lobbyists together.

Does the constitution say anything else about habeas corpus? From this passage it most certainly DOES NOT grant habeas corpus. It only prohibits the suspension of it. I mean, you dont need the governments assistance to speek freely, but you need some help to have your own court case. Why should we assume that we have this right if the constitution never says, "we have the right of habeas corpus"?

But the Federalist Papers indicate that the writ of habeas corpus is, indeed, a right bestowed by God--a fundamental right for you heathen..
From #84

The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, and of titles of nobility, to which we have no corresponding provision in our constitution, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains. The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone,1 in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government. And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas-corpus act, which in one place he calls the bulwark of the British Constitution.


Number 83 touches on it a bit, as well...though not as convincing.

Arbitrary impeachments, arbitrary methods of prosecuting pretended offenses, and arbitrary punishments upon arbitrary convictions, have ever appeared to me to be the great engines of judicial despotism; and these have all relation to criminal proceedings. The trial by jury in criminal cases, aided by the habeas-corpus act, seems therefore to be alone concerned in the question. And both of these are provided for, in the most ample manner, in the plan of the convention.

It would be silly to prohibit the suspension of habeas corpus if the right didn't predate the suspension. The mention of suspension certainly guarantees the right.

Because logical arguments know no national boundaries.

Neither, apparently, does stupidity.

But the Federalist Papers indicate that the writ of habeas corpus is, indeed, a right bestowed by God--a fundamental right for you heathen..
From #84


Number 83 touches on it a bit, as well...though not as convincing.

It would be silly to prohibit the suspension of habeas corpus if the right didn't predate the suspension. The mention of suspension certainly guarantees the right.

Now that is good evidence. That officially ends this thread imo.

But the Federalist Papers indicate that the writ of habeas corpus is, indeed, a right bestowed by God--a fundamental right for you heathen.
Sure.
Number 83 touches on it a bit, as well...though not as convincing.
Again, true.
It would be silly to prohibit the suspension of habeas corpus if the right didn't predate the suspension.
No argument there.
The mention of suspension certainly guarantees the right.
Here's where we disagree.

While it would be silly to prohibit the suspension of something that hadn't been granted, there's no requirement that the law not be silly. Furthermore, it's possible that the authors of the constitution were unaware that habeus hadn't been granted, so prohibited its suspension in error.

But regadless, nothing about the constitutional restriction on the suspension of habeus requires that habeus actually exist.

But the Federalist Papers indicate that the writ of habeas corpus is, indeed, a right bestowed by God--a fundamental right for you heathen..
From #84


Number 83 touches on it a bit, as well...though not as convincing.

It would be silly to prohibit the suspension of habeas corpus if the right didn't predate the suspension. The mention of suspension certainly guarantees the right.

Now that is good evidence. That officially ends this thread imo.

Sure.

Again, true.

No argument there.

Here's where we disagree.

While it would be silly to prohibit the suspension of something that hadn't been granted, there's no requirement that the law not be silly. Furthermore, it's possible that the authors of the constitution were unaware that habeus hadn't been granted, so prohibited its suspension in error.

But regadless, nothing about the constitutional restriction on the suspension of habeus requires that habeus actually exist.
There's always the 9th amendment trump card. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," leaves the door open for a right to habeas corpus. In order to satisfy the other amendments that guarantee trial by jury, due process, confrontation of witnesses, a defendant is needed in a public setting -- all of which would be impossible without a writ of habeas corpus.

Sure.

Again, true.

No argument there.

Here's where we disagree.

While it would be silly to prohibit the suspension of something that hadn't been granted, there's no requirement that the law not be silly. Furthermore, it's possible that the authors of the constitution were unaware that habeus hadn't been granted, so prohibited its suspension in error.

But regadless, nothing about the constitutional restriction on the suspension of habeus requires that habeus actually exist.

You keep repeating the same inane refrain, despite the fact that your ass has been handed to you by Myrmidonisia.

Let me point out some more flaws in your argument.

1. If you bothered to read it, Federalist #84 makes your argument absurd. Federalist #84 not only makes it crystal clear that the right to habeas corpus is a fundamental right that exists seperate from the Constitution, but also expressly says that Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution is an unequivocal "establishment of the writ of habeas corpus." (emphasis added). Thus, your ridiculous speculation about what the Founders may have intended (or been mistaken about) flies in the face of what the Founders said the provision in question meant.

2. It is worth noting again just how fundamental a right habeas corpus is (and was to the Founders). As stated in Federalist #84:
"[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: 'To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.' And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls 'the BULWARK of the British Constitution.'"

It bears serious consideration why you and AG Gonzales are trying to deny that habeas corpus is protected by the Constitution in the first place. One can only assume it is, as our Founders warned, in furtherance of tyranny.

3. Contrary to your assertions, basic principles of statutory construction are that (a) statutes not be construed to be absurd and (b) provisions are not construed to be extraneous. That is not to say that a provision can never be absurd or extraneous, but that such a construction should always be avoided if possible. This is especially true when it comes to the Constitution.

4. In fact, if, as suggested, you had checked out Federalist #83, you would see the Founders expressly explaining that the "rules of legal interpretation are rules of common sense, adopted by the courts in the construction of the laws." (emphasis in original). Further, Federalist #83 denounces strained interpretations of the Constitution such as you and AG Gonzales are defending.)

5. In sum, you should be embarassed to argue for an interpretation of the Constitution that is "silly," "extraneous," or premised on a "mistake." Common sense (and rules of statutory interpretation) do make it obvious that the prohibition on the suspension of habeas corpus does guarantee the existence of habeas corpus.

You keep repeating the same inane refrain, despite the fact that your ass has been handed to you by Myrmidonisia.

Let me point out some more flaws in your argument.

1. If you bothered to read it, Federalist #84 makes your argument absurd. Federalist #84 not only makes it crystal clear that the right to habeas corpus is a fundamental right that exists seperate from the Constitution, but also expressly says that Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution is an unequivocal "establishment of the writ of habeas corpus." (emphasis added). Thus, your ridiculous speculation about what the Founders may have intended (or been mistaken about) flies in the face of what the Founders said the provision in question meant.

2. It is worth noting again just how fundamental a right habeas corpus is (and was to the Founders). As stated in Federalist #84:
"[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: 'To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.' And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls 'the BULWARK of the British Constitution.'"

It bears serious consideration why you and AG Gonzales are trying to deny that habeas corpus is protected by the Constitution in the first place. One can only assume it is, as our Founders warned, in furtherance of tyranny.

3. Contrary to your assertions, basic principles of statutory construction are that (a) statutes not be construed to be absurd and (b) provisions are not construed to be extraneous. That is not to say that a provision can never be absurd or extraneous, but that such a construction should always be avoided if possible. This is especially true when it comes to the Constitution.

4. In fact, if, as suggested, you had checked out Federalist #83, you would see the Founders expressly explaining that the "rules of legal interpretation are rules of common sense, adopted by the courts in the construction of the laws." (emphasis in original). Further, Federalist #83 denounces strained interpretations of the Constitution such as you and AG Gonzales are defending.)

5. In sum, you should be embarassed to argue for an interpretation of the Constitution that is "silly," "extraneous," or premised on a "mistake." Common sense (and rules of statutory interpretation) do make it obvious that the prohibition on the suspension of habeas corpus does guarantee the existence of habeas corpus.

hooray - Cat-Tribe is here!

Snip.

Wow! Now, why can't you argue this well in the other threads?

...

!

!!!!

Wow! Now, why can't you argue this well in the other threads?

Depends on how late into cocktail hour I've gotten. And whether on not you agree with me.

Depends on how late into cocktail hour I've gotten.

:p

And whether on not you agree with me.

Depends. I admire some of the conservatives' skills at arguing here; they back up their points with good evidence. Do this more and - even while attacking your points, to the sound of Poe or Shakespeare - I will be glad to acknowledge you did it better.

Nice retort though, I think I might go for the same zinger if the shoe was on the other foot.

This is the core of the entire arguement. If in fact its a defacto Constitutional right then congress CAN NOT be suspended by Congress, even if they wanted to, for any reason other than Rebellion or Invasion. The opposite arguement is that the Constitution does not expressly grant this right it just expressly defines its parameters (if) its permitted by Congress.
Not necessarily. It depends on whether or not Habeas corpus was recognised indepently of the Constitution. If it was when the Constitution was enacted then certainly it is a constitutional right and cannot be constitutionally denied except as provided for in the Constitution. Arguably the same is true if it were recognised after the Constution was enacted. If at any time from the moment the Constitution was enacted a habeas corpus right existed, then constitutionally it continues to exist because it is unconstitutional to suspend it (except as expressly provided for in the Constitution) no matter how it came exist.

The Constitution need not create habeas corpus, rather there needs to be an absence of habeas corpus from the moment the constitution was enacted until now for habeas corpus to not be a constitutionally protected right.

It bears serious consideration why you and AG Gonzales are trying to deny that habeas corpus is protected by the Constitution in the first place.
Neither I nor AG Gonzales is doing that. Are you even reading what I'm saying?

I'm making no claims at all as to whether habeus corpus is protected. I'm claiming (as Gonzales did) that that protection is not granted by the prohibition on suspension of habeus. There's just no way that makes logical sense.
Common sense (and rules of statutory interpretation) do make it obvious that the prohibition on the suspension of habeas corpus does guarantee the existence of habeas corpus.
I will proudly admit that I have no idea what "common sense" means, and I further assert that you don't either. I invite you to define the term for me in a way that is universally applicable.

Common sense cannot run contrary to logic, else it would cease to be any sort of sense, common or not.

Ok, drop common sense and return to the rules of statutory interpretation. It still makes your argument wrong.

Ok, drop common sense and return to the rules of statutory interpretation. It still makes your argument wrong.
As mentioned in Federalist #83, the rules of interpretation are based on common sense. The same problem persists.

I'll probably be holding parties when that dipshit Gonzales loses his job. Gotta show this to my Republican friends.

Haha, brilliant.

"Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended" = yea, but it doesn't explicitly say the right exists.

Nice.

Kind of like how the right to bear arms means short-sleeves :).

It states in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

They're saying it cannot be suspended except...Well it may not explicitly state that it is there but the Founding Fathers were infinitely more intelligent than those running the government today so anybody with some intelligence will see that if it can't be suspended that means, by default, it exists.

Neither I nor AG Gonzales is doing that. Are you even reading what I'm saying?

I'm making no claims at all as to whether habeus corpus is protected. I'm claiming (as Gonzales did) that that protection is not granted by the prohibition on suspension of habeus. There's just no way that makes logical sense.

I will proudly admit that I have no idea what "common sense" means, and I further assert that you don't either. I invite you to define the term for me in a way that is universally applicable.

Common sense cannot run contrary to logic, else it would cease to be any sort of sense, common or not.

Nice job of avoiding almost all of my arguments. Again, since you seem to have missed it, the authors of the Constitution expressly said in the Federalist Papers that the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus was an establishment of the right to habeas corpus. This makes all speculation irrelevant.

Further, you need to re-examine what you are arguing. If, as you claim, you and AG Gonzales, do not deny that the Constitution protects a right of habeas corpus, what then is the point of arguing it is not protected by Article I, Section 9, Clause 2? Is this merely a pointless academic question to you? If not in that provision, where does the Constitution protect habeas corpus?

Considering how fundamental the right of habeas corpus is to English and American jurisprudence, how important it was to our Founding Fathers, and how central it is to the prevention of tyranny, it is pathetic to argue semantic possibilities that the right is not protected by the Constitution.

Regardless, you should pay more attention to what Gonzales said in his exchange with Senator Spector. He did not merely say that the prohibition on suspension is not itself a protection of habeas corpus. AG Gonzales went further: he said "there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution." As I and others have pointed out, he is flat wrong.

Having read your arguments herein, it is not suprising that you are unfamiliar with the concept of common sense. AG Gonzales made it plain he doesn't have it either. Regardless, neither logic nor the laws of statutory interpretation support your view.

At best, your arguments amount to a stubborn insistence that it is merely possible to read the prohibition of the suspension of habeas corpus as not guaranteeing habeas corpus. But common sense -- and the rules of statutory interpretation -- tells us that we avoid an absurd reading of the provision and that we avoid a reading that would render the provision extraneous. Thus, whether it is possible to so read the provision is not enough. Such a reading is wrong.

Finally, let us be clear that even the hollow reed that you claim to be defending breaks. One does not suspend something that does not exist. More importantly, to say that something cannot be suspended means that the thing in question exists to be suspended (and to be protected from suspension). If the thing does not exist, how does one not suspend it?

More the point, it is not open to debate whether or not the right to habeas corpus exists. It was a fundamental right prior to the Constitution and it continues to be a fundamental right. Thus, the question of whether it exists is moot. It does and it cannot be suspended.

Nice job of avoiding almost all of my arguments. Again, since you seem to have missed it, the authors of the Constitution expressly said in the Federalist Papers that the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus was an establishment of the right to habeas corpus. This makes all speculation irrelevant.

Further, you need to re-examine what you are arguing. If, as you claim, you and AG Gonzales, do not deny that the Constitution protects a right of habeas corpus, what then is the point of arguing it is not protected by Article I, Section 9, Clause 2? Is this merely a pointless academic question to you? If not in that provision, where does the Constitution protect habeas corpus?

Considering how fundamental the right of habeas corpus is to English and American jurisprudence, how important it was to our Founding Fathers, and how central it is to the prevention of tyranny, it is pathetic to argue semantic possibilities that the right is not protected by the Constitution.

Regardless, you should pay more attention to what Gonzales said in his exchange with Senator Spector. He did not merely say that the prohibition on suspension is not itself a protection of habeas corpus. AG Gonzales went further: he said "there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution." As I and others have pointed out, he is flat wrong.

Having read your arguments herein, it is not suprising that you are unfamiliar with the concept of common sense. AG Gonzales made it plain he doesn't have it either. Regardless, neither logic nor the laws of statutory interpretation support your view.

At best, your arguments amount to a stubborn insistence that it is merely possible to read the prohibition of the suspension of habeas corpus as not guaranteeing habeas corpus. But common sense -- and the rules of statutory interpretation -- tells us that we avoid an absurd reading of the provision and that we avoid a reading that would render the provision extraneous. Thus, whether it is possible to so read the provision is not enough. Such a reading is wrong.

Finally, let us be clear that even the hollow reed that you claim to be defending breaks. One does not suspend something that does not exist. More importantly, to say that something cannot be suspended means that the thing in question exists to be suspended (and to be protected from suspension). If the thing does not exist, how does one not suspend it?

More the point, it is not open to debate whether or not the right to habeas corpus exists. It was a fundamental right prior to the Constitution and it continues to be a fundamental right. Thus, the question of whether it exists is moot. It does and it cannot be suspended.

:)
Missed ya, mon capitan.
*bows*

I never claimed habeus corpus hadn't been guaranteed. I'm only saying it's not guaranteed by the passage that prohibits its suspension, which is exactly the point Gonzales was making.

He didn't say people don't have habeus. He said maybe they don't, and that that passage didn't give it to them. That doesn't preclude them having it by some other means.

This is load of crock and you know it. If something is taken away by the Constitution, then we had the right to begin with.