Posted on 01/19/2007 10:27:44 AM PST by FLOutdoorsman
He's questioning bodies?.........What a torture technique?.....
The Constitution doesn't GRANT any rights. It merely guarantees them against violation by the federal government (and by extension of the 14th amendment, the states).
Many careless writers and talkers think in terms of the Constitution as a grant of rights . . . but that's not correct (if a government can grant rights, it has the power to take them away. Then you simply live at the sufferance of the government. But that's the way liberals like it.)
Gonzales is simply stating the law, but the idiot writer saw an opportunity to bash and panic . . . mostly because he hates the Bush administration and everything associated with it.
The Constitution refers to it as a "right." I believe it's the only "right" that is in the Constitution.
Isn't this normal for him?
“You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said.
--
imho, You went down that path a long time ago Senator, remember the JFK assassination investigation?
and as to only applying in times of rebellion or invasion, we are being invaded on the hour at the southern border in case you haven't noticed and very close to rebellion if you idiots keep up your tired act and pontificating in Washington.
Those are amendments. I'm referring to the Original document.
So what's wrong with what he said I wonder? All you've got to do is read the Constitution to see he's right.
The Writ of habeas corpus come from the English Common Law which is still the law of the United States (through 1776) except where otherwise specifically amended. What The AG said is an exact and precise statement of the law, something I am happy to hear from a lawyer, rather than the political gobbledygook you get from people who don't understand the law or the Constitution. The Writ is what it is and, like the rest of the Common Law, is not otherwise defined in the Constitution.
Good for him, I say.
bookmark
Article I Sec. 9 reads as follows: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
It's a privilege of free men, not a right. I repeat, the Constitution does not grant anything. It merely provides in this section (governing the legislative branch) that Congress shall not suspend the Great Writ except under certain circumstances.
The Great Writ long predates the American Republic, it originated some time during the Anglo-Saxon period as an absolute, inborn, God-given right of free men.
I wish people would just go and READ the Constitution -- it's available free on line in half a dozen easily located places . . . parts of it are somewhat heavy going, but it's not long and not that difficult.
Seems to me it's an obligation of citizens to read their founding charter . . .
Perhaps we should all pull out a history book and research exactly why a bunch of colonal people revolted against the British Crown. There are a number of reasons...from taxation without represenation...to unfair taxes in general...but somewhere amongst all the reasons...people for some reason demanded fair trials for citizens. The idea that the King's men could set up their own court, and make judgements outside of "normal" accepted local law...was a significant issue.
We are slowly but surely approaching a point where we can make silly comparisons between the King's judgement of 1770 and the Bush judgements of 2007. When you start making such silly judgements...and they start to cease being silly...then something has gone wrong with our Republic. A Republic does not exist...if we are left to change the rules and laws without due consideration (congress and the supreme court). I don't see Gonzalez in a very bright light...its doubtful that he really grasps the meaning of our Republic and the historical swing that we are going through.
When you wake up in ten years...and realize that some secret presidential judge now has the power to seize you...a private citizen...hold you for several years if the prosecution believes necessary without conducting an actual case against you...and take your property and capital without due consideration...you may well see issues to this entire process.
A right is not contingent, although it may be lost or abrogated by misconduct.
E.g.: a driver's license is a privilege, contingent on meeting certain requirements and passing a test.
The right to life is absolute.
The Great Writ traditionally was confined to freeborn males, and additionally in early times to those qualified to participate in the Witangemot or assembly of the people.
That would depend upon your definition of what is is. LOL
the fact is that the government has no authority to do away with habeus corpus except in extreme circumstances that require martial law, signals to me that Gonzales position is rather a bit of semantic nonsense.
it seems to me that the founders fully intended for habeus corpus to be a recognized right (or if you want to get technical, privledge) that will exist at all other times, except in the most extreme circumstances
I agree with Spector on this one.
You do know that courts have ruled otherwise don't you.
Read the 9th Amendment and get back to me.
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.