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!!! :-)
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.
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
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.
Fire this La Raza SOB now.
Well, we now have a new boilerplate question for all future nominees to the post of Attorney General: "Does the U.S. Constitution grant the right of habeus corpus?" Anyone who fails to answer "Yes" to that question will not be confirmed by the Senate.
So I guess we can thank Gonzales for that. In another two years, at most, he'll be gone. But the question he inspired will live on. And now Attorney General nominees will undoubtedly be quizzed on a host of other fundamental questions to determine if they possess a basic knowledge and understanding of our Constitution.
Which Gonzales apparently doesn't.
It seems to me that if the Constitution says that habeas corpus can be suspended "...in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety..." then Congress can certainly reduce habeas corpus rights or repeal them altogether "in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety".
How hard is that to understand?
They ought to just undercut the housing of soldiers in homes Amendment, because that's the only part of the Constitution that hasn't been assaulted and ruined by statists. Might as well finish the job.
"The privileges and benefit of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall be enjoyed in this Government, in the most expeditious and ample manner; and shall not be suspended by the Legislature, except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time not exceeding months."
If it absolutely must be suspended, the legislative branch must do it....not the executive branch. This is upheld by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout and Ex Parte Merryman
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.)
IIRC, even President Jefferson took a broom to it on one occasion.