Posted on 01/24/2007 7:45:58 AM PST by SmithL
"How can you guarantee not to suspend something without granting it?"
THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS!!!
We already have them and it's the governments job to protect them.
The Attorney General is WRONG and he starts to do this, I'll support the ACLU.
...and I f*&^%$ hate the ACLU!
First of all the intent of the Constitution was to limit the power of the Federal Government, not the other way around. Secondly, it's not a laundry list of US Citizen rights. That's why there's only about four specifically mentioned in the original Constitution.
And in case he forgot, "We the people" grant the Federal gubmint certain powers as delineated in the Constitution. All other 'Rights' and 'powers' are retained by the people and the states. In short, our rights are inherent and absolute (almost).
So if Gonzo really believes what he's saying, he is a DANGER to the Republic. And he'll see SCOTUS when hell freezes over.
(btw, this is an old article and was posted last week. The SF Comical is behind the times publishing it today.)
Those powers not granted to the Fed, remain with the states. The original soveriegn rule.
You are not addressing the fact that what Alberto said is entirely correct.
That's because he's not "entirely correct," unless he's playing a semantic game. That sentence is technically correct in itself, but his larger point about our rights is flat-out wrong.
The right is not expressly listed in the Constitution. On that Alberto is "entirely correct." But then to say that the right is therefore somehow not protected is flat-out wrong, betraying an astonishing ignorance of our Constitution of which the Attorney General ought to be ashamed.
What Clinton said was "entirely correct", depend on what the definition of "is" is.
IIRC, even President Jefferson took a broom to it on one occasion.
It's very simple. We need only to look to The Declaration...
"...We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
I say also among these is the right to tell any government to p!$$ off. Who the hell does Gonzales think he is? Some sort of lord or baron?
The people who have been appointed by those we elected...and to a large degree, those we elected...seem to have forgotten the simple concept of government of the people, by the people and for the people.
"This country belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." --Abraham Lincoln
Including one Congressman who committed teh crimeof criticizing his war policy.
Including one Congressman who committed teh crime of criticizing his war policy.
The key to what Gonzalez is saying is an understanding of how we get our rights. All our rights come, not from the government, but from our Creator. The Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."
So, you have the right to, say, turn on all the lights in your house. Government didn't grant you that right, however, the government can limit your right to turn on all your lights under certain circumstances - for instance, in the event of an air raid.
It's the same thing with habeus corpus. The government didn't give you the right of habeus corpus, but the Constitution provides that the government can, under certain circumstances, suspend that right.
You are correct. I should learn to read the whole damned article before posting.
Nah....no fun in that.
The Constitution doesn't "grant" ANY rights. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
The right is not expressly listed in the Constitution. On that Alberto is "entirely correct." [That is what I am saying. And there are powers granted the federal government to remove the right when necessary.
There is no right granted within the Constitution but there is a power granted to remove it if necessary.
I guess what he was saying is that there is no "express" grant of the right, but that there is an implied grant of the right since the possibility of suspending it assumes it exists.
This country is under a rebellion right now by Leftists and the MSM.
I'll agree that Alberto is correct in that the right is not listed, if you will agree that he is incorrect in thinking that means anything.
He also tried to arrest the Chief Justice of the USSC....Taney I believe it was.
The Constitution does not "grant" any rights, period. All it does is acknowledge that Americans already have rights, some of which it lists and some of which it doesn't. The Attorney General really ought to know that.
hmm... what is that thing we call the "Bill of Rights"? I thought that was part of the Constitution.
Are you under the impression that the Bill of Rights grants rights?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.