Posted on 01/24/2007 7:45:58 AM PST by SmithL
"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 ...
Someone with a much better grasp of the Constitution will need to explain this one to me.
It doesn't say individuals have the right to bear arms either. /s
For someone admittedly uneducated in this, Specter's question was my first as well: 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?
Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution, restricting powers of Congress, forbids the suspension of habeas corpus except, "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it."
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."
It's also true that the Constitution does not grant citizens the right to eat.
If anything should be found in emanations and pnumbras, this should be it!!! :-)
I think the problem here is --- Gonzales is right.
If you read the exchange provided at the bottom, it is pretty straightforward. The constitution does not grant a right-- in the way that we find things such as freedom of speech. The constitution acknowleges habeas corpus but it is not the the origin of that claim.
Of course, this technical clarification does not matter to the paranoid attackers of the Bush administration on the right and left. Clearly Gonzales wants to put everyone in jail and rule as a solitary dictator. The SF Chronicle concedes that no such proposals are in the works -- but it doesn't matter. The world of Bush is absolutely incomprehensibly immoral and wrong.
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.''
Surely Gonzales isn't this stupid or uneducated. He must, therefore, be disingenuous when making such a stupid argument.
Not only is a prohibition against suspending habeas corpus an admission that it is a right Americans do have, the Constitution is not and never has been a list of rights.
Perhaps Alberto needs to read the Ninth Amendment again.
In 1996, Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act which makes it much more difficult for murder defendants to have their habeas corpus appeals heard in federal court.
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.
Habeas corpus was suspended in several parts of the country during the Civil War (i.e. a rebellion). I don't think that, for instance, unlawful enemy combatants captured overseas meets the constitutional test for it's suspension.
habeas corpus ping
The Attorney General appears to confirm your analysis.
Then he shouldn't play word games.
"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas," he says.
This is true, it doesn't *say* that we have the right. We still do have the right, however. And he knows it.
Correct, rights that come from < gasp> God.
I suspect Gonzales was appointed AG to pad his resume for the next SC opening.
Imagine him on the SC and making decisions in this regard.
And are not Alberto's to take away without good cause and due process.
Fire this La Raza SOB now.
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.