[lonestar67]

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.

[highball]

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.

[lugsoul]

No, he is not. He may be correct that the Constitution does not 'grant' rights - but he also said that American citizens do not have the right to the Great Writ, because such right is not granted by the Constitution. The latter part is grossly incorrect, and hardly debatable.

[ksen]

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.

Are you serious? The Constitution is not the origin of any of our rights. Our rights exist because we are human and endowed by our Creator....yada yada yada. The Constitution merely protects our rights from undue government interference.

This was one of the reasons people objected to including the Bill of Rights because certain other people would come along and say if it's not enumerated in the Constitution then we don't have it.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way, not even to protect something stupid the President's AG said.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

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.

[lqclamar]

I think the problem here is --- Gonzales is right.

You're incorrect. John Marshall explained the function of the habeas corpus clause in the 1808 ruling of Ex Parte Bollman. The clause's existence, he said, did not simply prevent Congress from suspending habeas corpus - it also obliged Congress to provide a means of issuing the writ in all cases where it is not suspended. Wrote Marshall "for if the means be not in existence, the privilege itself would be lost, although no law for its suspension should be enacted."

[jammer]

The constitution does not grant a right

So what? The Constitution grants NO rights. The Constitution recognizes those rights granted by our Creator and enumerates where those rights cannot be infringed. Again, for those of you who couldn't pass civics: the Constitution DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS.

[spunkets]

"I think the problem here is --- Gonzales is right. The constitution does not grant a right"

No rights are granted by govm't. Govm't only grants privaledge, where their is otherwise no right to engage. The declaration and the Consitution acknowledge that rights are inherent to the individual, as God, or nature provided.