Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: capitan_refugio; lentulusgracchus
If these are not equivocal statements, I don't know what are.

...so claims the king of equivocation.

Returning to Scalia's dissent, though, we find that his recognition of Congress as the sole authority that may suspend Habeas Corpus is downright unequivocal regardless of what equivocation-boy says. From Scalia:

"It follows from what I have said that Hamdi is entitled to a habeas decree requiring his release unless (1) criminal proceedings are promptly brought, or (2) Congress has suspended the writ of habeas corpus."

"If the situation demands it, the Executive can ask Congress to authorize suspension of the writ–which can be made subject to whatever conditions Congress deems appropriate, including even the procedural novelties invented by the plurality today. To be sure, suspension is limited by the Constitution to cases of rebellion or invasion. But whether the attacks of September 11, 2001, constitute an “invasion,” and whether those attacks still justify suspension several years later, are questions for Congress rather than this Court."

1,677 posted on 11/28/2004 5:51:38 PM PST by GOPcapitalist ("Marxism finds it easy to ally with Islamic zealotism" - Ludwig von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1671 | View Replies ]


To: GOPcapitalist; capitan_refugio
Concurring bump.

[GOPcapitalist, to capitan] Returning to Scalia's dissent, though, we find that his recognition of Congress as the sole authority that may suspend Habeas Corpus is downright unequivocal regardless of what equivocation-boy says. From Scalia:

"It follows from what I have said that Hamdi is entitled to a habeas decree requiring his release unless (1) criminal proceedings are promptly brought, or (2) Congress has suspended the writ of habeas corpus."
[Emphasis supplied.]

Scalia is pretty clear: Congress should suspend habeas corpus, if there is to be any suspension. I'm still not happy about the idea that Congress can "authorize" the Executive to suspend it -- that's a copout by Congress, if they did it (as they did in 1863, to wash fellow Republican Lincoln -- and at that, as has been noted above, Lyman Trumbull had to pull a dark-of-night parliamentary maneuver to get the indemnity bill through).

So, capitan, you don't think Scalia is tall enough? He's taller than Jack Rakove! Or your boy Wood.

So why don't you think Scalia's scholarship is authoritative enough, when Wood practically crayfished out of the room when Scalia walked in? Metaphorically speaking, of course.

And of course you have a clear Supreme Court holding, in an opinion, stating that the Executive may, on its own initiative, suspend habeas corpus? Cough it up.

1,683 posted on 11/28/2004 11:15:35 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1677 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson