Posted on 05/10/2025 1:12:40 PM PDT by Red Badger
Proving once again that C&C readers are far ahead of the media’s curve, yesterday, the New York Times ran a story headlined, “Trump Officials Consider Suspending Habeas Corpus for Detained Migrants.” “The Constitution is clear,” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Steven Miller told reporters outside the White House. The writ of habeas corpus “could be suspended in time of invasion.” Miller was completely correct.
The “somebody said something” story, if you can call it that, was a steaming heap of journalistic excrement. For one example, after repeatedly referring to the writ of habeas corpus as a “right” until readers got the message, it finally got around to quoting the Constitution, which expressly refers to the writ as a “privilege.” Only then did the Times admit circumspectly that it is “a right generally guaranteed.”
Sadly, Times readers are the least well-educated members of our society. They need some kind of remedial program.
A quick refresher for our Portland readers (who, at least, surpass New York Times subscribers in educational attainment). “Habeas corpus” is Old Latin for “show the body.” It’s the legal system’s emergency brake for the government to produce an arrestee in court and justify their imprisonment. It forces officials to either put up (with evidence) or shut up (and release the person), putting the kibosh on secret or indefinite detentions. When courts issue the writ, they’re saying: “Bring the prisoner here, now, and prove you have the right to hold them or else let them go.”
Next, after stating as a fact that the writ may only be suspended by Congress, and not the President, the Times then reported that the four times in American history it was suspended was by presidents. It quoted the infamous story of Lincoln’s suspension, oddly, without mentioning his equally infamous defiance of the Supreme Court’s chief judge. All the Times recalled about that remarkable story was this passive-voice chestnut: “his move was challenged.”
Instead, the Times focused on the fact that Congress eventually authorized Lincoln’s suspension retroactively— two years after the fact.
That retroactive approval was the only time —of the four times— that Congress got involved. So the Times’ argument was at best incomplete, and ignored the strong precedent available to President Trump.
That isn’t to say the article didn’t raise some talking points. It mentioned that three federal judges so far have challenged the Administration’s invocation of an “invasion,” a type of reflexive judicial invasion of the political sphere that would have been much more welcome during the pandemic, when Biden and his progressive allies closed churches and mandated experimental medical treatments, or during the 2020 election debacle, back when judges deferred en masse to “political questions.” But set judicial restraint aside, since the courts have also.
But everything we need to know about the Gray Lady’s journalistic merits was betrayed by the fact that the story quoted zero experts supporting Trump’s position or even allowing it has some historical merit. So much for balance.
I hesitate to predict whether Trump will actually suspend the writ. The hanging threat of suspending it might be a better tool than its use in practice. But if he does suspend the writ, it will only be because the courts —which never interfered with Obama’s or Clinton’s mass deportation schemes— have made it impossible to remove large groups of foreign nationals without time-consuming individual due process.
Despite the Times’ best efforts to confuse everybody and make it impossible to have an intelligent debate, there is a good argument about due process in the context of mass deportation. My legal perspective is that it will come down to the simple question of whether the U.S. is “under invasion” or not. If millions of illegal entries of foreign nationals is an invasion, even a non-traditional one, then the Constitution expressly allows due process to be temporarily suspended.
During the Constitutional Debates, founder James Madison argued that “in cases of imminent danger the general government ought to be empowered to defend the whole Union.” And in Federalist No. 43, Madison explicitly included “insurrections” and even “domestic violence” as threats akin to foreign invasions— and said the federal government must intervene.
That particular type of key question —whether or not something that looks like an invasion is in fact a “real” invasion— has never been decided by courts, which have always deferred to the political branches, especially in times of emergency. A ruling on the constitutional validity of Trump’s “invasion” declaration would push the courts into shaky new legal ground —a real example of overreaching— a nuance the Times studiously ignored.
I can barely understand them on a tech support call!! How we supposed to know what theyre saying here!??
This will give Trump the chance to arrest federal judges for sedition.
sorry... posted that on the wrong thread!!
That was a good read.
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/mrna-mayhem-saturday-may-10-2025
?
Oh, and Flopping Aces also changed the title to Jeff Childer’s column.
Copy and paste the link to Childers column to read his great post.
But did you? Considering the foreign born judges and all....
ya sometimes i’m right even when I think im wrong! I tell my kids all the time! “Whether i’m right or wrong i’m still right!” lol...
I believe FDR at least notified Congress that he was suspending Habeus Corpus. Trumps problem if he doesn’t get the consent of congress is that impeachment will appear back on the table.
Although the NDAA which is approved by congress every year allows the the President almost unlimited powers in case of a national emergency and I believe we are still operating under Trump’s original national emergency order.
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.