Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gonzales says the Constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 1/24/7 | Bob Egelko

Posted on 01/24/2007 7:45:58 AM PST by SmithL

Attorney general's remarks on citizens' right astound the chair of Senate judiciary panel

One of the Bush administration's most far-reaching assertions of government power was revealed quietly last week when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified that habeas corpus -- the right to go to federal court and challenge one's imprisonment -- is not protected by the Constitution.

"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas,'' Gonzales told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17.

Gonzales acknowledged that the Constitution declares "habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless ... in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.'' But he insisted that "there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.''

Specter was incredulous, asking how the Constitution could bar the suspension of a right that didn't exist -- a right, he noted, that was first recognized in medieval England as a shield against the king's power to dispatch troublesome subjects to royal dungeons.

Later in the hearing, Gonzales described habeas corpus as "one of our most cherished rights'' and noted that Congress had protected that right in the 1789 law that established the federal court system. But he never budged from his position on the absence of constitutional protection -- a position that seemingly would leave Congress free to reduce habeas corpus rights or repeal them altogether.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: habeascorpus; weaselwords
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-188 next last
To: Still Thinking

"How can you guarantee not to suspend something without granting it?"

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS!!!

We already have them and it's the governments job to protect them.

The Attorney General is WRONG and he starts to do this, I'll support the ACLU.

...and I f*&^%$ hate the ACLU!


41 posted on 01/24/2007 8:43:50 AM PST by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Gonzales is playing semantic word games. He might as well say it depends on what 'is', 'is'.

First of all the intent of the Constitution was to limit the power of the Federal Government, not the other way around. Secondly, it's not a laundry list of US Citizen rights. That's why there's only about four specifically mentioned in the original Constitution.

And in case he forgot, "We the people" grant the Federal gubmint certain powers as delineated in the Constitution. All other 'Rights' and 'powers' are retained by the people and the states. In short, our rights are inherent and absolute (almost).

So if Gonzo really believes what he's saying, he is a DANGER to the Republic. And he'll see SCOTUS when hell freezes over.

(btw, this is an old article and was posted last week. The SF Comical is behind the times publishing it today.)

42 posted on 01/24/2007 8:44:10 AM PST by Condor51 (The demoncRATs don't want another 'Vietnam' - they want another Dien Bien Phu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metesky
The Constitution itself was writ against Federal government encroachment on the states, listing exactly what the Feds could do.

Those powers not granted to the Fed, remain with the states. The original soveriegn rule.

43 posted on 01/24/2007 8:45:16 AM PST by stainlessbanner ("I cannot be destroyed. I cannot be silenced. I cannot be compromised." - The Nuge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
You are not addressing the fact that what Alberto said is entirely correct.

That's because he's not "entirely correct," unless he's playing a semantic game. That sentence is technically correct in itself, but his larger point about our rights is flat-out wrong.

The right is not expressly listed in the Constitution. On that Alberto is "entirely correct." But then to say that the right is therefore somehow not protected is flat-out wrong, betraying an astonishing ignorance of our Constitution of which the Attorney General ought to be ashamed.

44 posted on 01/24/2007 8:47:28 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
You are not addressing the fact that what Alberto said is entirely correct.

What Clinton said was "entirely correct", depend on what the definition of "is" is.

45 posted on 01/24/2007 8:48:10 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

IIRC, even President Jefferson took a broom to it on one occasion.


46 posted on 01/24/2007 8:50:49 AM PST by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas,''

It's very simple. We need only to look to The Declaration...
"...We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I say also among these is the right to tell any government to p!$$ off. Who the hell does Gonzales think he is? Some sort of lord or baron?
The people who have been appointed by those we elected...and to a large degree, those we elected...seem to have forgotten the simple concept of government of the people, by the people and for the people.

"This country belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." --Abraham Lincoln

47 posted on 01/24/2007 8:53:31 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Fell deeds awake! Now for wrath! Now for ruin! And the red dawn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lovecraft
He arrested over 13,000 US citizens during the war.

Including one Congressman who committed teh crimeof criticizing his war policy.

48 posted on 01/24/2007 8:56:07 AM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: lovecraft
He arrested over 13,000 US citizens during the war.

Including one Congressman who committed teh crime of criticizing his war policy.

49 posted on 01/24/2007 8:56:14 AM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
How can you guarantee not to suspend something without granting it? AND, isn't that guarantee not to suspend it in fact an implicit grant itself?

The key to what Gonzalez is saying is an understanding of how we get our rights. All our rights come, not from the government, but from our Creator. The Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."

So, you have the right to, say, turn on all the lights in your house. Government didn't grant you that right, however, the government can limit your right to turn on all your lights under certain circumstances - for instance, in the event of an air raid.

It's the same thing with habeus corpus. The government didn't give you the right of habeus corpus, but the Constitution provides that the government can, under certain circumstances, suspend that right.

50 posted on 01/24/2007 8:56:18 AM PST by Terabitten (How is there no anger in the words I hear, only love and mercy, erasing every fear" - Rez Band)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
I think the problem here is --- Gonzales is right.

You are correct. I should learn to read the whole damned article before posting.

Nah....no fun in that.

51 posted on 01/24/2007 8:56:55 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Fell deeds awake! Now for wrath! Now for ruin! And the red dawn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The Constitution doesn't "grant" ANY rights. That doesn't mean they don't exist.


52 posted on 01/24/2007 9:01:14 AM PST by Sloth (The GOP is to DemonRats in politics as Michael Jackson is to Jeffrey Dahmer in babysitting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highball

The right is not expressly listed in the Constitution. On that Alberto is "entirely correct." [That is what I am saying. And there are powers granted the federal government to remove the right when necessary.


53 posted on 01/24/2007 9:04:32 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

There is no right granted within the Constitution but there is a power granted to remove it if necessary.


54 posted on 01/24/2007 9:05:35 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I guess what he was saying is that there is no "express" grant of the right, but that there is an implied grant of the right since the possibility of suspending it assumes it exists.


55 posted on 01/24/2007 9:09:04 AM PST by Busywhiskers (Strength and honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highball
The Constitution does not "grant" any rights, period. All it does is acknowledge that Americans already have rights, some of which it lists and some of which it doesn't. The Attorney General really ought to know that. hmm... what is that thing we call the "Bill of Rights"? I thought that was part of the Constitution.
56 posted on 01/24/2007 9:09:38 AM PST by golfboy (character is doing what is right, when no one is looking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jeff F

This country is under a rebellion right now by Leftists and the MSM.


57 posted on 01/24/2007 9:10:09 AM PST by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

I'll agree that Alberto is correct in that the right is not listed, if you will agree that he is incorrect in thinking that means anything.


58 posted on 01/24/2007 9:10:35 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: TBP

He also tried to arrest the Chief Justice of the USSC....Taney I believe it was.


59 posted on 01/24/2007 9:11:09 AM PST by lovecraft (Specialization is for insects.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: golfboy
The Constitution does not "grant" any rights, period. All it does is acknowledge that Americans already have rights, some of which it lists and some of which it doesn't. The Attorney General really ought to know that.

hmm... what is that thing we call the "Bill of Rights"? I thought that was part of the Constitution.

Are you under the impression that the Bill of Rights grants rights?

60 posted on 01/24/2007 9:11:51 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-188 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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