Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus

Baltimore Chronicle ^ | 19 Jan 2007 | ROBERT PARRY

[AnAmericanMother]

Then Article 1 doesn't apply, and we're back where we started.

[TigersEye]

Gonzales is being technical to the point of absurdity.

That is certainly true. It is the one thing that the author may have gotten right.

"While Gonzales’s statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it,..."

If Gonzalez thought that Specter or any other Senator could appreciate this semantic nit picking it demonstrates his own ignorance.

[mugs99]

Then Article 1 doesn't apply, and we're back where we started.
LOL!
Since you refuse to answer the question I put to you, I'll just assume that you will support the suspension of Habeas Corpus by President Hillary.
.

[AnAmericanMother]

I don't refuse to answer the question . . . it just has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

But, since you insist . . . I reject the concept of a President Hillary. The woman's a Marxist, besides which she is one of the most personally unlikeable individuals breathing. The only way she got the senate seat was due to the press running heavy cover for her (that and a hopeless excuse for an opponent). So I'm not holding my breath, might as well worry about Lyndon LaRouche getting elected dogcatcher.

If she were -- by some fluke and the inattention of the Almighty -- elected, there would be a very real possibility of civil war in this country and she probably would TRY to suspend habeas. Don't think she'd get very far with it, and it would probably trigger a constitutional crisis.

Despite all the alarmist talk by the loony libs re all the supposed civil rights violations by the Bush administration . . .

[Condor51]

The intent of the Constitution was to LIMIT the powers of the Federal Government. As such, James Madison didn't exactly give individual 'Rights' much thought (or ink /s). As we say now, "they were a given". However there are a few specifically stated in the 'original' Constitution.

Furthermore, Gonzalez is talking through his a$$. From his perspective, if a Right - or 'privilege' (lets play semantics) is not specifically stated in the Constitution or Amendments as being 'absolute', we don't have it.

THAT is specifically contradictory to the 10th Amendment.

"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."

You'll note that the Constitution delegates powers "to" the gubmint, not the other way around.

Ergo, Arlen is c-o-r-r-e-c-t.

[AnAmericanMother]

Don't think so.

He is, of course, technically correct. The Constitution doesn't grant any rights. And I don't see him saying that we don't have any rights that the Constitution doesn't give -- in fact, he's saying just the opposite.

The more I think about this, the more I think Gonzalez is just pulling Spector's chain. Richly deserved, and he's put some lib writer's shorts in a knot, and that's a good thing too.

He seems to have inadvertently upset quite a number of folks on FR, though.

[HaveHadEnough]

The number of pages of convuluted legal reasoning in the SCOTUS decisions to take away a right versus the number of pages in a SCOTUS decision taking away a privilege, from what I can see.

Indeed. It's a lot of mental masturbation. It's a way to separate a people from their constitution by interposing a bureaucratic class that retains the right to interpret the words of the Constitution for the people. Kind of like what organized religion sometimes does between the deity and the people.

[org.whodat]

I confess I am puzzled.

The case came out of Missouri in the 50's or 60's. You cannot deprive a person the right to obtain food. Why do you think that a court issues a limited use permit in moments of suspending one for driving drunk.

[mugs99]

But, since you insist . . . I reject the concept of a President Hillary.

And people wonder how we have lost so many liberties!
.

[AnAmericanMother]

Only if they can't get a ride with the bus line or a brother in law.

Hardship permits can only be given by a judge and only in extreme circumstances. We don't see them much around here because "you can always take MARTA."

If the person's job requires driving, such as pizza delivery, sales calls, etc., he's going to lose it anyway because no company will accept the liability issues arising from allowing an employee to drive on a hardship permit after being busted for DUI. So then he doesn't need the hardship permit after all.

Not much of a right, at least not in this state.

[AnAmericanMother]

It boggles my mind that anybody could consider the Witch of Chappaqua for any elective office.

But if enough anybodies are stupid enough to nominate her, the money and people to work against her are going to materialize out of nowhere, like mad.

Rest assured that I would come out of political action retirement in that case . . .

[No.6]

"The Writ of habeas corpus come from the English Common Law "

This, of course, is why Specter is stammering ... he is only familiar with Scottish law.

:)

[jwalsh07]

You have a fan here. I agree with your take. Any government that grants rights can take those rights away just as well. Moreover they use the word "Privilege" for a reason. Congress can suspend privileges, they certainly should not be able to suspend what the DOI called inalienable rights. Although the courts seem to have that power, see Kelo, Roe and Doe v Bolton.

[Vicomte13]

The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, because every organ of American government, and the American people themselves, make it so by obeying every act of the Supreme Court.

The actual Constitution itself is a vague muddle that doesn't spell out much in detail, other than a few procedures. Powers are broad, undefined, and "understood" within the context of their times, then and now. It's very much a "Common Law" Constitution.

And anyway, if being "in the Constitution" is the issue, there's no right to life in there. There is merely the right to not be deprived of life without due process of law. Due process of law is not defined anywhere in the Constitution, and was assumed to be (and is) defined by whatever the Courts, Congress and the Executive between them say due process of law is.

Sola Scriptura doesn't work all that well with the Bible, and it collapses totally when one tries to apply it to the US Constitution!

[MosesKnows]

I agree with Spector on this one.

Would you not also agree with Gonzales when he said “There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution?

[jwalsh07]

And anyway, if being "in the Constitution" is the issue, there's no right to life in there. There is merely the right to not be deprived of life without due process of law. Due process of law is not defined anywhere in the Constitution, and was assumed to be (and is) defined by whatever the Courts, Congress and the Executive between them say due process of law is.

Actually the right to life is "in there" several times. Each time it is modified by the phrase "due process of law". And whatever "due process of law" is, unborn babies sure the hell ain't getting it.

Abortion, otoh, is nowhere to be found. Which is exactly the point that Justice White made in his dissent on Roe.

[Vicomte13]

"Actually the right to life is "in there" several times. Each time it is modified by the phrase "due process of law"."

Cite them, please.

[RobRoy]

This is a non issue. The constitution and bill of rights don't say what rights we have. He is correct.

What it says is what rights the Government can take away, and when. Rights are literally assumed, except where specifically mentioned as removeable.

Take the right in question here. In a court of law if someone was not granted this right, and it was not under one of the tow conditions where it is allowed, they could merely say they have the right until someone can show where the right is not in effect.

Bluntly put, you don't have to specify which rights citizens have. The list would be billions of entries. No, what you have is a constitution and bill of rights that say you have the right to ANYTHING that is not specifically spelled out as NOT a right.

[B4Ranch]

The night Hillary was first elected I watched her very carefully. As the tally was counted in the Districts she was holding her own but not pulling ahead of the other person. (I have forgotten who that was)

The Announcer on CNN (IIRC) that night said, "Well now it is up to the Jews to decide who they want to send to the Senate."

(I was puzzled by that statement. Then about an hour later, he was talking about the tally in NYC again and he said that the area that has not been counted yet is primarily Jewish residents. I was glad he explained it for me because I had no idea what he'd meant.

Then he said, "Tonight, it is looking as if the Jewish Democrats want Hillary. We'll know for sure, shortly."

Sure enough within the next two hours they announced that she had pulled ahead sufficiently to declare her the winner. So, my conclusion was that Jewish Democrats in NYC must like her for whatever reason and they voted for her in sufficient number to bring her the victory.

Perhaps you know why they like her. I sure don't.

[RobRoy]

The second amendment does not say we have a right. It says the right shall not be taken away.

All rights are assumed, unless explicitly mentioned as falling under the category of "not a right".