I Got Yer Habeas Corpus Right Here ...

I haven't seen a thread on this yet, so I'll go right ahead. Apparently the Bush administration does not believe that the right of habeas corpus is a given in the U.S.A., because the Constitution spells it out negatively. In other words, the Constitution says that habeas corpus cannot be suspended except in very specific circumstances, but it never says "and this means that habeas corpus is a right."

A bit convoluted, no? And what does this mean for the other rights which are declared in the negative? The First Amendment is riddled with 'em. Are those all not-quite-rights as well? Very strange stuff.

From the article:

“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.

Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.

“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.”

“You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said.

Why do you hate freedom (and Abraham Lincoln)?

Quote:

---

“You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said.

---

Vote Specter for Moderator of the Backroom!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

From the article:

“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.

Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.

“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.”

“You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said.

---

Now just what is it about Lawyers that allows them to cast common sense to the winds.

We as a nation were much better served when we used Common Law as the Basies of our legail system, rather than Admiralty Law. And why did such a thing ever happen, likely because we elect too many lawyers to office.

Stop with the Universal Health Care and give us Universal Legal Assistance…make all of them GS5s and take the money out of it. We would be back to Common Law in a fortnight.:dizzy2:

The rights specified in the first amendment (or the bill of rights in general) were seen as 'natural' rights at the time, and thus everyone would have that right.

I like what Specter said but common sense and the legal system don’t often intersect.

I guess it is not the end of the world if Gonzales questions it, there is nothing wrong with questioning the system but doesn’t he have anything better to do than try to find loopholes for the president? This is one of the reasons it is so very important to have good judges on the bench.

I really don’t mind eliminating habeas corpus for non-citizens during war time but questioning our “implied” rights set in the constitution is un-American. Knock-Knock anyone home? This is not popular with the voters, hello… anyone? Sees crowd of democrats waving from the sidelines “don’t worry, we’ll be in charge soon” Slaps forehead in frustration.:bomb:

Sadly, I'm cynical enough these days not to be surprised. Good find, Lemur. I hadn't heard boo about this.

It strikes me as ironic (and humorous, in a twisted sort of way) that Gonzalez's logic of 'prohibiting a conscription of a right does not mean the right exists' hearkens back to Bill Clinton's famous "it depends on what the defintion of 'is' is".

I'm becoming more and more afraid of both parties every day. Democrats at least have the courage of their convictions to admit that they don't support individual liberty, that they believe the needs of society dominate over the needs of the individuals. But Republicans, at least according to their public statements, are supposed to believe in limited government, not "Everything we can get away with, and then some".

I'll say this much: If it's a question of voting for the autocrats that admit they're autorcats but claim they're doing it for society's own good, or ones that outright lie and engage in Orwellian thoughtspeech of how this really an expansion of personal liberties, I'll have to hold my nose and go with the former.

Is it just me, or are there no options left?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen

Is it just me, or are there no options left?

---

Vote: Nader

Vote: Vader/Sideous in 2008

They'll sweep aside the old republic and the regional governors will have direct control over the colonies. Fear will keep the local systems in line!


Mwaaaahaaaahaaa!

I think it's high time we sacked our government and installed a new one. Where the President and Cabinet basically have a good 60-90% of their previous rights revoked. :whip:

If you'd like to see the exchange between Gonzalez and Specter, thanks to the stuffed tubes of the internets, I found the video.

I saw this live on CSPAN, I couldn't believe that he'd actually try to pull such BS.

Aren't all rights that aren't specified in the constitution assumed to be given? I thought the constitution was just supposed to reinforce some rights and restrictions for individuals while laying out the framework for government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

Aren't all rights that aren't specified in the constitution assumed to be given?.

---

I know, it's madness, isn't it? Like I said, what are the implications? The entire First amendment is spelled out in exactly the same way as habeas. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," for instance. So you don't really have a right to practice your religion as you see fit; the Constitution doesn't clearly state that there's freedom of religion. Atheism is just fine by that reading, though.

Likewise, by this light you don't necessarily have the right to be armed. "The right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," sez the Constitution. But it doesn't expressly grant you the right to own a deer rifle, now does it? And if that's what the Founders intended, wouldn't they have said so?

Insane. Absolutely insane.

[edit]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen

It strikes me as ironic (and humorous, in a twisted sort of way) that Gonzalez's logic of 'prohibiting a conscription of a right does not mean the right exists' hearkens back to Bill Clinton's famous "it depends on what the defintion of 'is' is".

---

Agreed on the bogus reasoning level, but Bubba's logic fluffery doesn't even begin to compare in terms of import. He wasn't trying to deny founding principles of our Republic; he was trying to weasel out of admitting to getting oral stimulation from an intern. Bubba was venal, but this is treasonous.

So, who wants Ashcroft back right about now? :laugh4:

For the next 2 years, I see the current administration in full CYA mode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

I saw this live on CSPAN, I couldn't believe that he'd actually try to pull such BS.

Aren't all rights that aren't specified in the constitution assumed to be given? I thought the constitution was just supposed to reinforce some rights and restrictions for individuals while laying out the framework for government.

---

Yes indeed they are. Habeas Corpus is given to the people in amendment 10 of the bill of rights.

Quote:

---

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
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.

---

My two favorite amendments, always have been, always will be. I believe both of these are relivant to this discussion, 9 explicitly prevents the government from removing habeas corpus in any way from the citizens of the USA. 10 explicitly states that any power not mentioned in the constitution, habeas corpus yes it's mentioned as not being able to taken away, are held by the citizens of the USA.

My favorite amendments as well. Too bad no one has payed any attention to them since the Depression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rameusb5

Vote: Vader/Sideous in 2008

They'll sweep aside the old republic and the regional governors will have direct control over the colonies. Fear will keep the local systems in line!


Mwaaaahaaaahaaa!

---

Here here! :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It strikes me as ironic (and humorous, in a twisted sort of way) that Gonzalez's logic of 'prohibiting a conscription of a right does not mean the right exists' hearkens back to Bill Clinton's famous "it depends on what the defintion of 'is' is".

---

Agreed on the bogus reasoning level, but Bubba's logic fluffery doesn't even begin to compare in terms of import. He wasn't trying to deny founding principles of our Republic; he was trying to weasel out of admitting to getting oral stimulation from an intern. Bubba was venal, but this is treasonous.

---

I'm forced to agree.

I'm liking this administration, and the GOP, less and less every day.

Did we get anything from the years we controlled the legislature and executive?!

Gah... I'm gonna support Ron Paul in '08.

Here's another video link (as Lemurs was not working): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD5CEBQC-TY

(funny that the video poster praise Sen. Leahy whilst ignoring Specter)

CR

Habeus Corpus is the ability to petition in order to free onself from unlawful imprisonment. If it is denied, the government would be thus violating the fifth amendment which guarantees the right to due process and the sixth amendment, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial and to be told of his or her charges

I saw something about this on CSPAN. Fricken hilarious how the guy arging made no sense at all. Just thought I'de pop in and say that. :grin:

Well this is interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

I saw this live on CSPAN,

---

Hahahaha!

This is what you get when you keep naming your inalienable human rights in random Latin nobody understands.

Or may be it's Gonzalez who's whacked in the head.

:balloon:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

This is what you get when you keep naming your inalienable human rights in random Latin nobody understands.

---

How many references to anime have you made in the Backroom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoreBag

How many references to anime have you made in the Backroom?

---

A lot.

But how is this one of them!?

(Confused myself, seriously)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

This is what you get when you keep naming your inalienable human rights in random Latin nobody understands.

---

I don't get the anime reference either, but it wouldn't surprise me if there's some sort of reference in Ghost in the Shell, 2nd Gig. Or something.

I included a link to a full article on the origins and meaning of habeas in the first post. Just don't tell Navaros that it's from the evil Wiki.