[AnAmericanMother]

This writer is an idiot.

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.

[Loud Mime]

The Constitution refers to it as a "right." I believe it's the only "right" that is in the Constitution.

[mugs99]

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.
LOL!
You will have no complaints when President Hillary suspends Habeas Corpus?
.

[TigersEye]

This writer is an idiot. The Constitution doesn't GRANT any rights.

Yup. It reveals his lack of understanding or lack of respect for the Declaration of Independence which sets forth the foundation and only cause for the authority of the U.S. constitution. The priniciple that all men are created equal in their possession of basic human rights and that those rights are inherent in the individuals creation. Rights are bestowed by the Creator and nothing and no one else.

No surprise that this caused Specter to stammer incoherently. He was probably wracking the peas in his cranium looking for a relevant Scottish law.

[Condor51]

The intent of the Constitution was to LIMIT the powers of the Federal Government. As such, James Madison didn't exactly give individual 'Rights' much thought (or ink /s). As we say now, "they were a given". However there are a few specifically stated in the 'original' Constitution.

Furthermore, Gonzalez is talking through his a$$. From his perspective, if a Right - or 'privilege' (lets play semantics) is not specifically stated in the Constitution or Amendments as being 'absolute', we don't have it.

THAT is specifically contradictory to the 10th Amendment.

"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."

You'll note that the Constitution delegates powers "to" the gubmint, not the other way around.

Ergo, Arlen is c-o-r-r-e-c-t.