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.
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.
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
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.
Congressman Billybob
And if Janet Reno said the same thing while AG I'm sure we'd all be applauding just as much.......
I've read this a couple of times, and I'm not really sure what Gonzalez was saying. It must be said that I don't trust the man. But it's true: the Constitution doesn't GRANT rights. They are "inalienable rights" given to all men by God, and the Constitution says they cannot be taken away.
The right to life. Freedom of religion. The right of self defense. The right to liberty. The right to the pursuit of happiness.
The Declaration of Independence, which I think can rightly be considered a preamble to the constitution, specifically mentions three of these inalienable rights. But the right to bear arms, for example, although granted by the Constitution, depends in turn on the natural right of self defense. Thankfully, the writers of the Constitution were familiar with the natural law tradition as well as the teaching of Christianity.
Exactly what Gonzalez is trying to say here, I don't know. I do know that I don't want him on the Supreme Court.
This is a non issue. The constitution and bill of rights don't say what rights we have. He is correct.
What it says is what rights the Government can take away, and when. Rights are literally assumed, except where specifically mentioned as removeable.
Take the right in question here. In a court of law if someone was not granted this right, and it was not under one of the tow conditions where it is allowed, they could merely say they have the right until someone can show where the right is not in effect.
Bluntly put, you don't have to specify which rights citizens have. The list would be billions of entries. No, what you have is a constitution and bill of rights that say you have the right to ANYTHING that is not specifically spelled out as NOT a right.
I see. So, that's why he didn't mention the 2nd Amend.
Gonzales may be technically correct, but that just makes it sound like legal double talk being used to justify the expansion of government powers...you know, something conservatives are supposed to be against. If this is OK then Freepers shouldn't complain about the IRS, eminent domain, what happened at Waco, or "Stormtrooper" cops busting into people's homes.
This is awesome! I'm in awe that some people here are actually defending someone who questions a persons right to habeas corpus.
Good Lord
Habeas Corpus has been... "ignored" by the government when it felt it needed to before. The fact that people in the government believe what Gonzales has said openly should be no surprise to anyone.
(At least, that was the original idea.)
I fear the day when we have a heavily liberal government, and being a member of a group like the NRA would be defined as being a member of a terrorist organization.
Everyone should consider this before blindly supporting the infringement of ANYONE'S constitutional rights when there is an administration in power that you perceive to be friendly to you. It won't always be that way. Imagine if Hillary were president looking for some of the powers that the Bush Administration has gotten since 9.11. Most folks here on FR and other conservatives would be raising hell.
The Constitution applies Laws and Rights only to Citizens.
Non-Citizens are Non-Citizens. They are not Covered.