Alberto Gonzalez says "there is no express grant" of habeas corpus in the Constitution.Good. So let's lock him up and refuse to allow the judicial branch access to him.
Article I, section 9. Second sentence.The Attorney General is well aware of that, Joe. In fact, he gave this "no express grant" argument explicitly in terms of that, when directly questioned on it by Senator Specter.
Why now? Why are they playing this card now?The Administration has been holding people - including American citizens - without allowing Habeas Corpus for quite some time now.
I say I'd like to see this, well, ruled on by the Supreme Court but what I'd really like is to see Gonzalez cockpunched by Henry Rollins.While the Constitution does state that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction as to both law and fact, it does not expressly grant the Supreme Court the right to convene.
I suppose you're referring to Lincoln trying to suspend habeas during the civil war; but he lost that fight.Details, please? I was under the impression that, although the courts ruled his suspension of Habeas as unconstitutional, Lincoln essentially ignored that, and it remained suspended (in effect) until after the war completed.
And regardless, whether you agree with the action or not, the suspension of habeas corpus under Lincoln was clearly Consitutional.Was it?
I find the word 'privilege' there very disturbing. However, I am not clear how this stacks up with the 5th and 6th ammendments in the Bill of Rights. That's what puzzles me. Can someone explain it for us lay folk?The "writ of habeas corpus" is (technically) the power of the judicial branch to demand explanation for why a prisoner is imprisoned; it is not the right of the prisoner to demand so.
powers, me thinks.Well, that's the exact word that the Declaration of Independence says, certainly. And I'm not saying the writ of h.c. is not a "power" (in fact, I explicitly said it was a "power"). But it's not clear to me why that implies that the word "privilege" is not applicable.
The Supreme Court, under the stewardship of Chief Justice Marshall ruled in favor of the Indians and ordered the President to protect the Indians. Jackson responded "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."In a just world, Jefferson would rise from the fucking grave to wring your scrawny little errand-boy neck, Gonzalez, you spineless sack of shit.
Amendment XQuod Erat Fucking Demonstratum. You want stupid sophomoric semantic nitpicking? I got your stupid sophomoric semantic nitpicking right here, motherfucker!
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.Indeed rolltruck found an interesting quote for a _plausible_ pretense. As eriko noticed in a past thread, Gonzo points at the difference between "right" and "privilege" and founds his objection on the text of the constitution which reads :
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 itTherefore if writ of habes is just a privilege, Amendment IX can't help much
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.One could argue that if any american citizen is born free, therefore he/she has all the powers, he/she can do absolutely anything..unless there is an agreement to find a _limit_ to the exercise of freedom, starting from the Constitution, which also limit an otherwise limitless power of governments. Gonzo says habes is a "privilege" and not a right, so shove it !
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.And I haven't found any mention about "power to decide habeas can't be applied to you" , but certainly if such a power is to be constructed it is reserved to State or People.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Here's the "which people" , as it wouldn't make any sense to attribute any other "people" a power that would substract from U.S. citizen the power to control themselves.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.They also like to ignore Amendment V (my emphasis):
No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.posted by kirkaracha at 5:45 AM on January 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
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...A fuller transcript reveals that Gonzales's response to that was "Umm." He knows he's full of it.
Specter: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.
« Older A virgin birth? No, but a virgin hatch. The proc... | Every Mythbuster myth... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Burhanistan at 7:50 PM on January 24, 2007 [1 favorite]