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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-188 next last

1 posted on 01/24/2007 7:45:59 AM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Someone with a much better grasp of the Constitution will need to explain this one to me.


2 posted on 01/24/2007 7:47:15 AM PST by SmithL (Where are we going? . . . . And why are we in this handbasket????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

It doesn't say individuals have the right to bear arms either. /s


3 posted on 01/24/2007 7:51:05 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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?


4 posted on 01/24/2007 7:51:51 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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."


5 posted on 01/24/2007 7:54:33 AM PST by BulletBobCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
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.

6 posted on 01/24/2007 7:55:04 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

If anything should be found in emanations and pnumbras, this should be it!!! :-)


7 posted on 01/24/2007 7:55:12 AM PST by KeyesPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


8 posted on 01/24/2007 7:55:38 AM PST by lonestar67 (Its time to withdraw from the War on Bush-- your side is hopelessly lost in a quagmire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
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.

9 posted on 01/24/2007 7:58:07 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


10 posted on 01/24/2007 7:59:11 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
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.

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.

11 posted on 01/24/2007 8:01:03 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The Constitution does not expressly grant habeas corpus, but it is certainly implied by Article 1, section 9. The same section seems to limit the suspension of habeas corpus to cases of rebellion or invasion.

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.

12 posted on 01/24/2007 8:03:48 AM PST by Jeff F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan; billbears; 4CJ; stand watie; PeaRidge; groanup; CurlyBill; Libertarianize the GOP; ...

habeas corpus ping


13 posted on 01/24/2007 8:07:12 AM PST by stainlessbanner ("I cannot be destroyed. I cannot be silenced. I cannot be compromised." - The Nuge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highball

The Attorney General appears to confirm your analysis.


14 posted on 01/24/2007 8:09:19 AM PST by lonestar67 (Its time to withdraw from the War on Bush-- your side is hopelessly lost in a quagmire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

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.


15 posted on 01/24/2007 8:12:26 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | 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.

Correct, rights that come from < gasp> God.

16 posted on 01/24/2007 8:12:30 AM PST by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


17 posted on 01/24/2007 8:13:05 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

And are not Alberto's to take away without good cause and due process.


18 posted on 01/24/2007 8:13:17 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1770290/posts


19 posted on 01/24/2007 8:14:42 AM PST by Loud Mime ("She got her looks from her father. He's a plastic surgeon." - Groucho Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | 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,'' Gonzales told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17.

Fire this La Raza SOB now.

20 posted on 01/24/2007 8:14:53 AM PST by Centurion2000 (If you're not being shot at, it's not a high stress job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 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