Gonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution’
Gonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution’
Yesterday, during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed there is no express right to habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution. Gonzales was debating Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) about whether the Supreme Court’s ruling on Guantanamo detainees last year cited the constitutional right to habeas corpus. Gonzales claimed the Court did not cite such a right, then added, “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”
Specter pushed back. “Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?” Specter told Gonzales, “You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.” Watch it:
As McJoan noted, the right of habeas corpus is clear in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Contitution: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
Full transcript:
SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there’s an express constitutional provision that it can’t be suspended, and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.
GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you’re referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.
SPECTER: Well, you’re not right about that. It’s plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.
GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn’t mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas.
SPECTER: When did you last read the case?
GONZALES: It has been a while, but I’ll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.
SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.
GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —
SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?
GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —
SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.
GONZALES: Um.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
is there nothing that will cause americans to wake up and smell hitler?
January 19th, 2007 at 10:42 amhave some with your morning coffee!
Oy. What a frickin’ doofus.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:44 amLook at the guy behind Gonzo. Is that a “D’oh!!” moment, or what?
January 19th, 2007 at 10:45 amThis guy got his law degree in a Crackerjack box. He and Bush and Cheney HAVE TO GO!
January 19th, 2007 at 10:45 amImpeach this son of a bitch. How can he protect our Constitution if he doesn’t know what the words mean?
January 19th, 2007 at 10:46 amLet me supply their twisted rebuttal.
Habeas Corpus is a Priviledge, not a Right… you know, like health care.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:47 am[…] If politicking year around is the only way to get bums like Attorney General Gonzales out of office, then I would do it. In committee yesterday, he asserted that the Constitution does not grant the write of Habeas Corpus. Senator Specter doesn’t let him get away with it. Well, at least not much. GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme — […]
January 19th, 2007 at 10:49 amThe rove/cheney/bush “The President is King” approach to administration is a direct challenge to the Constitution. It is now up to Congress to protect us and the Constitution from these non-evolved clowns. It is certain that the more they are challenged, the more their basis for their actions will be exposed as illogical, irrational, and illegal.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:50 amOhhhh, I see, it was never there to begin with. The government has just been real nice for the last 200 some odd years. I see.
I’m glad Gonzo cleared that up.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:51 amHabeas Corpus is a Priviledge, not a Right… you know, like health care.
Yeah, they have us there. I mean the distinction between a priviledge and a right is plainly defined in the dictionary of “common sense” and “tradition” the reich-wingers love to beat us over the head with…
January 19th, 2007 at 10:51 am“You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense,”
Well I have no idea if he was treading on his interdiction, as I have never heard that word, but he for sure is violating common sense.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:52 am…
WoW. That man, the Attorney General, is seriously scary.
It begs the question: Who else has he denied rights to on the basis of his F.Uped Logic???
“There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution“??
Other than “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.†he means.
Guess that explains why they denied Jose Padilla (who may be guilty as Sin, but deserves his day in Court!) his right in the US…
January 19th, 2007 at 10:53 amIt’s individuals like Alberto Gonzales who give lawyers a bad reputation. I think american bar association should work on higher standards for lawyers. Specifically, integrity.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:53 amDamn! We are showcasing Alberto Gonzales as our top lawyer of the land. Then again, we have George Bush as President. No wonder world thinks americans are stupid and obnoxious.
He should be disbarred.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:54 amWhat an idiot. He should be punched in the face JUST for even try to defend that for 4+ years dozens of people have been detained without having access to a lawyer or to a fair trial…mofo.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:54 amGonzo sounds like a teen trying to rationalize his way out of trouble when he’s about to severely punished.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:55 amThe founding fathers designed the constitution to protect us from people like Gonzales, Cheney and Bush.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:56 amThese guys will do anything just to be able to torture humans.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:57 amin·ter·dict (Än’tÉ™r-dÄkt’) Pronunciation Key
To prohibit or place under an ecclesiastical or legal sanction.
To forbid or debar, especially authoritatively. See Synonyms at forbid.
To cut or destroy (a line of communication) by firepower so as to halt an enemy’s advance.
To confront and halt the activities, advance, or entry of: “the role of the FBI in interdicting spies attempting to pass US secrets to the Soviet Union” (Christian Science Monitor).
I had to look it up, Yikes.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:59 am:)
Linked with a tangible policy instituted by Gonzales, that is grounds for Impeachment of his office and further, disbarment.
Here is a Daily Kos comment from a lawyer that gives some info on filing complaints.
::::::
January 19th, 2007 at 10:59 amlast night on olberman, some guy (sorry) said that gonzo was acting
January 19th, 2007 at 11:02 am“more general than attorney”…
where DID he get his law degree?
where DID he get his law degree?
Comment by katy
I would say that in the Mossad.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:06 amThis bozo is the Attorney General?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:08 amGood damn thing the chymp didn’t nominate him for the SCOTUS.
Impeach his dufoid ass!
File a complaint against Gonzales with the State Bar of Texas, the only state where he is licensed.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:09 amWe’re just overreacting. It’ll take years for this to affect white people.
/sarcasm.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:09 amF*ck it, they can lock me up, torture me, kill me. It won’t change my mind.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:10 amWords do not express how shocked I am at “Attorney General†Gonzales’ statement. I am starting to question if this guy is even a lawyer. I mean I hear you can get your “Law Degree†from Offsore-Laywer.lie or some other place on the internets. This passive dismissal of a fundamental right such as habeas corpus freaks me the hell out. Clearly this guy does not even know the basics of the law he is sworn to protect.
Using his logic we as Americans have no rights at all, because you can’t assume that you have it, even if you are told it can not be taken away.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:11 amOK…one could make an excellent case that, with this one statement, Gonzales has broken his oath to uphold the Constitution, and is revealed as a traitor to this country.
Never mind all the other shit he’s done, this alone is grounds for impeachment.
When Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, etc. are all up against the wall Gonzales needs to be right there beside them.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:11 amThese people are absolutely terrifying. Given the chance, there is no civil liberty they will not upend, thinking that they’re defending the right people and punishing the wrong people. The precedents they set - if they’re allowed to set them - will end America as we know it. Is it possible to impeach an entire administration?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:11 amIn the Bush administration, failure is not an option! It’s a job requirement!
January 19th, 2007 at 11:11 am“The founding fathers designed the constitution to protect us from people like Gonzales, Cheney and Bush.
Comment by nineteen84 —
And Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz and Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle and Douglas Feith and Lewis “Scooter” Libby and John Bolton and Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan and Michael Ledeen and William Kristol and Frank Gaffney Jr.
And if you want to know why
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html
January 19th, 2007 at 11:11 am“GONZALES: Um.”
I think that says it all right there.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:12 amGONZALES: Um.
The smartest thing the man said in the whole exchange.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:13 amMAN I really don’t like that guy Gonzalez
January 19th, 2007 at 11:14 amIsn’t he a lawyer? Can’t you be disbarred for this?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:14 amGonzo has NO common sense and Specter knows that. He’s a finger puppet for the Bush Administration. Even as an off-the-street attorney, he’s non impressive but to imagine that he is the Attorney General of this country is utterly appalling. He’s not well spoken in common discourse; he’s ill educated on basic constitutional law and he makes a total “doofus” of himself when asked questions in public. Guess he suffers from the same affliction as Dubya….when he opens his mouth, everyone cringes because they fear what idiocy may spew forward…..that’s why Gonzo and Bushco make great bedfellows! They’re totally in sync with their level of being out of synch with the rest of the world.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:17 amHow come the main job of the Attorney General whose job it is to pursue major crimes and legal challenges on behalf of the American people has been demoted to a full time Bush defense attorney. Is there a way to remove him for dereliction of duty somehow?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:18 amHow can anyone defend this shite?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:18 am#32
January 19th, 2007 at 11:19 amkelso……nice timing. :)
Isn’t he a lawyer? Can’t you be disbarred for this?
Comment by bnye
Probably not, unless they find out what else he’s done…
But it’s really embarrassing for him, so let’s keep talking about it. :)
January 19th, 2007 at 11:19 amWhat an f***ing, lying a**hole. Prison can’t come soon enough for this traitor.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:20 amthat’s why Gonzo and Bushco make great bedfellows! Comment by veritas
Please do not put that visual into my head.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:20 am:P
At least Gonzales is consistent. You have to be extremely careful how you phrase things with him, or he will dodge the question, or come up with some unintended meaning.
And the conservatives used to complain about Clinton and the meaning of “is”.
That’d be a geat debate. Clinton versus Gonzales. Of course we’d all have to stay awake, which would be a challenge.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:21 amHe meant we have no right to Harry’s Core-puss, or Hades’ Corpuscle.
Listen more closely.
I see a thread in the future, it is about Gonzo’s backpeddling on this issue. He will say we heard him wrong.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:21 am… Offsore-Laywer.lie …
Comment by Marq — January 19, 2007 @ 11:11 am
heh… thanks… i needed that…
January 19th, 2007 at 11:21 amDoes anyone recall Gonzo’s famous idiotic answers during his nomination hearings? I guess the same miasma of disbelief clouded everyone’s thought processes just as this same dark, dank cloud permeates anything that Dubya does - which keeps people in denial about whom we’ve got representing us these days. DENIAL is not just a river in Egypt…it’s alive and well in that quickly diminishing percentage of individuals who still support this corrupt regime….most of that percentage are the corporate crooks who are filling their coffers in siding with Bushco….the others are totally in denial about what this country is all about and what we have rapidly become….the epitome of a “non democracy” parading as a “democracy”…..we are THE QUINTESSENTIAL CONTRADICTION.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:21 amVerbalKint sez:
Don’t traitors generally get the death penalty?
(That’s right, Gonzales, I called you a traitor.)
January 19th, 2007 at 11:23 amOne word… TREASON
January 19th, 2007 at 11:25 amHoly Crap!!!! He took speech lessons from Rumsfeld. I believe this falls into the catagory of Known unknown. That is it was known that the AG would pull a rabbit out of his ass but it was unknown what color the rabbit would be.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:27 amYeah, well I’m anti-death penalty. But if I favored the death penalty, I judge that dozens of people in the Bush administration have earned it. I will settle for life in prison without parole.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:27 amThis is simply and totally amazing. And as scary as anything I’ve heard from “our” government, if it is still indeed ours.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:31 amThese guys, our supposed elected representitives, use George Orwell’s 1984 as a political guide.
The republicans have totally lost any and all of my support, they have amply demonstrated their vision of America is a totalitarian nightmare.
and little old arlen specter sneaked in a provision to give abu gonzalez authority to fire u.s. attorneys and appoint his own little quizlings…
sorry, arlen, but your showboating yesterday doesn’t begin to absolve you. scumbag.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:31 amThis is a continuation of the ongoing executive branch power grab.
Gonzales is implying that “some people” don’t qualify for constitutional protection. These people can simply be placed in the “enemy combatant category and made to disappear down a black hole.
How do you know if you’re an “enemy combatant?”
If the president (or any of his minions) says you are. That’s all it takes these days.
Gonzales and the justice dept. are going out of their way to keep these cases out of court, just like the Padilla situation. The last thing they want is a courtroom confrontation over the constitutionality of their activities, as they probably realize that they are, in actuality, breaking the law, in a very severe sense. They are breaking their oaths to uphold the constitution.
Their power grabs continue — even ones we probably don’t even know about, yet.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:32 am#50, yeah, me too, but I also used to think that prison road gangs were a bad idea.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:33 amNot so sure anymore.
Now that’s not a bad visual, AlbertoVO5, chymp and Darth, out there a swingin their scythes, singin acapella
“Oh, Lord, how low we go…”
As a mandate against corruption “within”, this Congress has an obligation to the american people to INVESTIGATE, INDICT, AND INCARCERATE all the criminals and perpetrators of “high crimes & misdemeanors”…this means lying to support a case for war, illegal spying on american citizens, torture of suspected terrorists, and just about everything else this guy has done wrong. It seems we’ve become pretty callous regarding our own democracy while spinning the support of democracy in Iraq! It seems we’ve become very amoral when we force a president into resignation (with imminent impeachment proceedings - ala Nixon) for wiretapping a political headquarters (Watergate) and impeach another (Clinton) for an office dalliance…..
Where is the morality of this country when officials are breaking the laws we must abide by right in our faces? Where is the shock that should be at the fore to hear such nonsensical statements, spin, and talking points being paraded as “truth” when it’s clearly and overtly total “propaganda”. Where is the call for truth in reporting these days? Where is the anger at treason in the intentional “outing” of a covert intelligence agent which was done because her husband found evidence which contradicted the lies and spin of this administration in the run up to the war?
Have we as a nation decended to such depths? Have we as a nation traded our “civil rights” for a promise of “security”. Jefferson said that when man trades his civil rights for a promise of security, he will have neither - civil rights nor security. Prima facie evidence of this is our perpetually open borders while the Bush puppets spout of empty rhetoric about us being “secure”. Have we become Bushbot non-thinking, illogical idiots to accept this toxic drivel?
We all need to take a long hard look at ourselves in the mirror and ask ourselves just how much more “complicit” we are going to allow ourselves to become? Just how much more of our rights will we trade for the lies about being secure? How much more of our democracy are we going to stand by as it crumbles to the ground? Do we even still have a true, valid democracy? I think not.
If one reads “THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY” regarding the presidential excesses of the Nixon era, it’s clearly evident just how far this administration has usurped the power of the people. It’s a “must read”. We’ve falled so very far……so very far in a mere 6 years….it’s a very sad awareness.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:33 amWell, the Constitution doesn’t say “Lying under oath is a high crime or misdemeanor” either, but damn if the Republicans didn’t come close to throwing out a sitting President for equating one with the other.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:34 amWhen Arlen Specter was the head of the judiciary committee, he greased the wheels for Gonzo. Wiretapping? No problemo! You want to fire US Attorneys and appoint your political hacks without Senate approval? Piece of cake, I’ll just secretly slip it into this bill when no one is looking. You’re right Alberto, we don’t need no oversight here and your confirmation will be a breeze!
Specter acting like he’s appalled that Gonzo would say there’s no right to habeas corpus is just that, an act. Specter and anyone else who’s been paying attention has known that Bush and Gonzo believe that the Constitution is advisory only. Dictators don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution.
Specter has been the enabler in chief for 5 years. It was during his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee that the destruction of the Constitution has taken place. He can’t blame Gonzo. He let Bush do whatever he wanted. What did Specter do about Gitmo and habeas corpus when he led the Judiciary Comm.? Not a goddamn thing! What did he do about warrantless wiretaps? Squat! Specter is pathetic. Only now is he outraged because he knows the Dems will cover his pathetic, wrinkled ass. Too bad he sold his balls to Bush a long time ago.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:34 amSo where are the so-called conservatives on this? Do true conservatives even exist, or were they always a myth? Are they in hiding somewhere? Obviously the incompatibility between conservatism and the Republican party is nearing 100%.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:34 amHow, exactly, is the priveledge of Habeas Corpus supposed to exist if government doesn’t actively grant it?
He seems to believe the Constitution simply says government can’t take Habeas Corpus away — as though it could exist independent of government action. That runs counter to its very definition. It’s absurd.
This guy has gotten so used to splitting hairs that he assumes he can do so when there’s no hair to be split. He must think he’s the intellectual equivalent of Rogaine.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:35 amCertainly hard labor would be an appropriate penalty for Bush, since he has never had to engage in it before.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:36 amAnd Arlan Specter is a phoney….who talks the talk but never walks the talk! He should be the poster child for “doubletalk and hypocrisy”. Be very suspicious when you hear Arlan posturing against his party - it’s his windbag of bullcrap from one of the oldest airbags in Congress. He thinks the people don’t realize what he’s all about. He has zero credibility for truth; in fact, his little “specter show” preceeds just about every smoothing over of the ruffled feathers of this cavalier, capricious administration….check it out….almost like clockwork. They pull out their “Clockwork Orange Arlan” and wind him up to do his dirtywork.
Arlan Specter fools no one; in fact, he was part of the Kennedy coverup and that will be his real legacy. He learned from the dispicable how to panhandle truth a long, long time ago. He needs to be soon retired from Congress because he’s totally out of touch and out of step with most americans. Time to wave bye-bye, Arlan, and put yourself out to pasture as a fraudulent “has been”!
January 19th, 2007 at 11:38 amHope the NRA is ready to turn over their guns. There’s no express right to gun ownership in the constitution. It just says we can’t make a law infringing on that right, ya know, assuming it exists, which it may or may not.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:39 amLet’s press Congress for an investigation into Arlan Specter. He seems to be the enabler of this corrupt administration and someone needs to trace his steps back to JFK to see where this guy really functions….I fear it’s in the sewer of the republican party. ARLAN, THE ENABLER…..NEEDS TO GO!
January 19th, 2007 at 11:40 amComment by Dick (no, not that one) — January 19, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Excellent commentary. May I use it in a fax to Arlen’s office in Washington?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:40 amMAN I really don’t like that guy Gonzalez
Comment by mc — January 19, 2007 @ 11:14 am
mc - I agree! For one thing, he seems to enjoy himself far too much while he masters the art of stonewalling and mis-interpreting the Constitution!
January 19th, 2007 at 11:44 am“You may be violating common sense”
Can you believe how stupid the AG must think people are?
He makes a completely frivolous and non-existent distinction when he says…
“‘There is no express grant of habeas corpus in the Constitution… there’s a prohibition against taking it away”
That’s not a matter of opinion, or even a case of reasonable minds differing…
There’s no real distinction to be made there…
And yet the guy intentionally, knowingly, tries to bamboozle his auditors as though he had just made a real distinction…
…and he does the exact same thing earlier, when he makes a distinction between the “statutory” right of habeas corpus, versus the “Constitutional” right of the same.
This stuff isn’t accidental, or even a matter of opinion…
…it’s some guy thinking he’s talking to morons, and that he can talk right over their heads, and then laugh about how he bamboozled them by making a non-existent distinction.
“There’s no express grant to free speech, just a prohibition against taking it away… and there is no statutory prohibition against taking away free speech, just a Constitutional one.”
January 19th, 2007 at 11:44 amWC,
January 19th, 2007 at 11:48 amSure, go right ahead. When Arlen had a chance to actually do something for the country, he hid. He is as despicable as Bush and Gonzalez because when push came to shove, he always sided with evil. He may feel bad now about being on his knees servicing Bush for 5 years, but I don’t think he has a shread of conscience. He just knows that he’s got to get on the other side now.
This is why we should own guns. Tyranny will forever be at our door - we should be waiting on the other side with a rifle.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:50 amComment by RUCerious — January 19, 2007 @ 11:33 am
I just want to hear each of them say, “I’m shakin’ it, boss!”
Start the impeachments with Gonzales, then work our way up. This guy’s got to go FIRST.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:53 amI wonder where Mighty White AfroMite Hermaphrodite the Gi Jew lawyer is, I was hoping the she(m) would opine about how Gonzales’ statement is on solid legal ground.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:56 amHope the NRA is ready to turn over their guns. There’s no express right to gun ownership in the constitution. It just says we can’t make a law infringing on that right, ya know, assuming it exists, which it may or may not.
Comment by Seitz
Let ‘em come get mine…..
I dare them! (click..click)
January 19th, 2007 at 11:58 amOK.. So he agrees that the constitution says that there is a right of habeas corpus… just not to “individuals”.
WTF?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:59 amI guees this means I need to arm-up the family.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:03 pmGreat post’s all, O.K. Jane…..I was here, read all the post’s and now so I don’t get round assed am leaving the site to do just that…..Send off more email’s in an attempt to get our representatives to get off their dead asses and do what we voted them in to do….
Not going to spend long hours reading and posting any more at all…….No good new’s here as usual so I will make some…..Working for Peace and Impeaching this bunch of basterd’s….Do as you choose every one but please do more than post here and on other sites, make a diffrence……Blessings
January 19th, 2007 at 12:05 pmTHIS IDIOT is the Chief law enforcement officer in the land?
Someone who doesn’t even BELIEVE in the rule of law?
…like the IDIOT who hired him….
…WE are IDIOTS for not DEMANDING that these Bushite clowns be ARRESTED for TREASON!
What’s it going to take?
…an invasion by the Chinese and Russians to rid US of OUR Saddam?
January 19th, 2007 at 12:11 pmHabeus Corpus is now a corpse.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:13 pmSharon: Wayne and I are going to DC next weekend, putting our feet where our fingers are(?). We’re tired of this and it has to stop.
I’ll be more than happy to email our rep and senators about Gonzales. We already know where they stand on Iraq and many other issues (we’ve got Chuck Shumer, Hillary, and our new rep John (”Dance with Me”) Hall.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:19 pmI just want to hear each of them say, “I’m shakin’ it, boss!â€
Comment by JaneESchneider
“See, what we got here, is failure to communicate.”
January 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pmGonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution’…
The Spector, Gonzales confrontation on ‘habeas corpus’ rights in our Constitution boils down to, ‘we have met the enemy and it is us’. Gonzales sees it that the rights of ‘habeas corpus’ does not apply to everyone when in the Constitution: "…
January 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pmAlberto & Arlan probably tipped a couple cool ones back, chuckling at how they had fooled the American people again.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pmAsscroft was just a prick. Gonzales is dangerous. He won’t tell the truth, his job is cover Bush’s ass, not provide clarity to anything.
“I haven’t read the report’ has been used by him, Cheney & other in the WH. That’s no excuse, it’s grounds for dismissal!
Laws are ‘moving targets’ for Alberto. Press until some sunlight appears & then either change venues or drop the activity.
He should have been dragged off the Senate floor straight to jail.
I know Bush had to put in some ‘token minorities’ on staff, but Gonzales & Rice? Unqualified, overrated, unscrupulous, unintelligent & liars.
Rule by fiat…
If we (the powerbrokers/slave masters) say it enough times…
…you little peons shall believe it!
January 19th, 2007 at 12:29 pmYou have to have a strong enough Constitution to express any hideous corpuscles?
I just can’t get it that he really said what he said, I am still in shock.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pmHi Jane…In addition to your other protests, I would ask that you and Wayne sign this petition:
http://ditchtheblack.com/
I am a little annoyed at ThinkProgress right now…I twice tried to post a commentary on Gonzales remarks and constitutional law and, so far, it appears they won’t post it. I have no idea why not. It violates none of the Terms and Rules.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pmIt is impossible to suspend something that does not exist!
January 19th, 2007 at 12:34 pmThinkProgress, I apologize…I see that my comment is now posted at #68 (and #78….I got impatient and posted twice…Sorry…I guess the length of the comment affects how long it takes to post)…Again, my apologies.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:37 pmHere comes the defenders. Oh boy.
I say and defenders of this go first to be without this right.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:37 pmEx(crement)ley…
YOU violate the Terms of Use…
January 19th, 2007 at 12:38 pm[…] According to ThinkProgress, yesterday Gonzo actually stated before the Senate Judiciary Committee the following words: There is no express grant of habeas (corpus) in the Constitution. […]
January 19th, 2007 at 12:41 pmI had to look it up, Yikes.
:)
Comment by trueblue — January 19, 2007 @ 10:59 am
Thanks trueblue. I looked it up as well. Good word and used correctly by Specter.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:44 pmWhat’s it going to take?
…an invasion by the Chinese and Russians to rid US of OUR Saddam?
Comment by big papa
I would say that Russia and China are really happy with this Saddam of yours…so there is no need to overthrow him. China owns much of US debt and Russia has the largest reserves of Natural Gas in the planet.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:45 pmUnless US invades Iran, Russia and China wont move.
I think what Gonzales and all other Bushites are saying is that, no matter what the words say, they can be turned into whatever they want them to say. Presto, do whatever you want because the words say it.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:47 pmExley–Okay, I signed it. I’ll let Wayne know to do so, too.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:51 pmExcellent! Thanks, Jane…
January 19th, 2007 at 12:56 pmWhat’s absolutely precious about this is that it captures perfectly the non-sensical basis of all conservative legal theorizing. Here you have this bunch of ideologues who proclaim “strict construction” of the Constitution, yet they manage to find whenever it suits them all sorts of “implied” presidential powers. Hey — it’s either in there or it’s not! Now they’ve come to the point where unless the Constitution says you have X, you don’t have X. The president has the “implied” powers to wiretap, sez Gonzo, but you and I haven’t the right to habeas because the Constitution only “implies” we do. They’re so sweet when they try to make sense of complex concepts like freedom and justice.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:08 pm“See, what we got here, is failure to communicate.â€
Comment by trueblue — January 19, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
Great movie, isn’t it?
January 19th, 2007 at 1:12 pmOn an asides, isn’t that guy sitting behind Gonzales’s left shoulder the same guy who sat behind Ashcroft when he faced questioning over Abu Ghraib? I’d recognize those “Golly shucks, sure we’re guilty. But we only did those god axful things because we love the America soooo much” eyebrows anywhere.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pmthe Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.â€
Alberto Gonzales’ argument is that the Constitution does not grant citizens the right to habeas corpus because the wording is different from the one he wants it to be. He disingenously reads the Constitution and ignores the clear meaning of the clause since it doesn’t state what he has decided it should, and how.
What is really frightening is that Gonzales, as attorney general, is responsible for enforcing the law -the very same he is bent on interpreting and re-interpreting on a whim.
See, Bush cultists, this is why checks and balances are needed: To stop a small clique from ignoring the law.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:28 pmGonzales even has his little symbol on his lappel. They have turned it into a fascist symbol.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:48 pm[…] Gonzales and Specter debate Constitutional right of habeas corpus: GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme — […]
January 19th, 2007 at 2:02 pmOh, yeah, and by the way, there aren’t any Amendments to the Constitution, those are just changes. They don’t mean anything that we don’t want them to mean.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:07 pmThe fourteenth one in particular, there’s no expressed right to equality or due process.
He’s a lying little f*ckwad. Just like his boss.
How can we stand by and watch these arrogant assholes piss on the very foundation of our country?
Even the 30%ers have to wake up at some point and see how seriously f*cked up these pukes are.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:14 pm[…] If you want a clear view of the type of mindset that got us into Iraq, all one has to do is look at the twisted mind of one Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General of the United States. Think Progress was kind enough to capture a moment that this man had while under questioning by Sen. Arlen Specter. You have to see it to believe it. GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme — […]
January 19th, 2007 at 2:21 pmWhy are they haggling with this ridiculous fool who doesn’t know from common sense. Why don’t they just impeach the sucker who keeps trying to give the President cover by claiming he (the AG) gave the Prez bad advice. He’s nothing but an enabler: always has been; always will be. Impeach Gonzales! And while they’re at it, Impeach Chertoff! I’m sure we can think of a few others, since they’re so reluctant to do the heavy lifting on the true principals. Impeachment and censure, two more long forgotten Congressional tools that they didn’t think we knew about!
January 19th, 2007 at 2:22 pmAfter the break following the Habeas exchange between Specter and Gonzales, Senator Leahy pointed out to Gonzales the number of other rights in the Constitution that are framed in a “negative” way and asked him to declare if he thought the right to free speech also wasn’t guaranteed since it’s written as not being able to be taken away.
Gonzales claimed he was only pointing out the exact language of the Habeas right.
I love that they’re finally being called immediately on their misrepresentations so they can’t gain speed on Fox News before they’re debunked.
Also, another Senator (Whitehouse from RI? — a former state AG) used his time to ask Gonzales about people dodging committee questions. (#43 this is for you) He made Gonzales confirm that he has to tell the truth whether put under oath or not when testifying before a Congressional committee and that the chairman may just have the right — as a judge does in a court — to force a witness to answer a question he’s attempting to dodge or claiming he’ll answer later. It was a great exchange — and I suspect it was designed to set up the next rounds of questionings of Bush administration officials. Brilliant!
January 19th, 2007 at 2:29 pmI am left actually speachless by this comment from the Attorney General.
The very first comment to this topic was:
What I want to know is: WHAT CAN WE DO?.
No. I mean really.
If a person, a citizen, is outraged, is incensed, is irrate, hearing the head of our Department of Justice saying “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution,†when the most cursory student of the U.S. Constitution KNOWS that this is incorrect, WHAT CAN WE DO?
I want to know because I’m ready to do it.
Now.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:37 pmOne would think that a person in Gonzales’ position would surely know the most basic principles of our constitution! Having people like this in our federal government is not only embarrassing but very dangerous to the survival of our country and our freedoms.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:39 pmIsn’t there some dude who wants Jody Foster’s attention?
January 19th, 2007 at 2:45 pmI only believe in killing when it is to save my life, or those of my loved ones. It seems appropriate in this case.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:46 pmFor Truth, thanks for the laugh!
Exley, I don’t see your earlier posts (supposedly #68 + #78.) What happened to them?
January 19th, 2007 at 2:48 pmI guess the revolution will not be interrupted by commercials?
January 19th, 2007 at 2:50 pmfortruth who is paying you??
the terrorists are the ones you support in the house
January 19th, 2007 at 2:53 pmJane
It’s either laugh or cry. This one is getting to me today. This one is just way over the line. I don’t care if he’s technically right. He’s ignoring the spirit.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:54 pmNOTICE how these guys, Gonzales and Bush, think everything is funny. Why is Gonzales laughing? It is not a time to be laughing. When someone tells a joke you laugh. This is not a normal reaction to being put in your place in front of a court in a very serious manner. It identifies a person out of touch with their emotions, or confused about their emotions, or a lack of the understanding of emotions. Gonzales is clearly Psychopathic.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:58 pmAhem,
Gonzo is simply another crony in the cabal. He’s NOT un/undereducated by any means:
Hmm, bowed out of service?
HE’S a product of illegal immigration?
What a crafty little appointment he’s become, eh Shrub?
Our damn upper-encrusted elected officials BETTER get this sh*t straight.
They only play bumbling goofball politicians so you and I won’t notice their under-handed manipulations.
Scary indeed.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:59 pm#109, Jane….I have no idea. I can understand one of them coming down because of the double-posting. But I have no idea why both were deleted. I e-mailed ThinkProgress to ask why it is no longer there.
Who knows? Maybe just a technical glitch.
It was bascially just a description of the debate among academics and judges as to whether the Constitution expressly grants the federal courts the right to issue a writ of habeas corpus.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:00 pmKC, #105,
“What I want to know is: WHAT CAN WE DO?.
No. I mean really.
If a person, a citizen, is outraged, is incensed, is irrate, hearing the head of our Department of Justice saying “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution,†when the most cursory student of the U.S. Constitution KNOWS that this is incorrect, WHAT CAN WE DO?
I want to know because I’m ready to do it.
Now.”
I can tell you what we can do. There is a thing we can do. If we can get a dialog going I can to tell you what it is.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:02 pmBy the way, it does not involve harming anyone. :) DUH.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:05 pmI don’t care if he’s technically right. He’s ignoring the spirit.
Comment by ForTruth — January 19, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
I don’t think Gonzales is even “technically” right. He is wrong from beginning to end.
The constitutional clause is clear: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended […]”. Gonzales himself starts to say it before he is cut short by Sen Specter. If it cannot be suspended, it necessarily exists.
That citizens have a right to Habeas Corpus was accepted as a matter of fact. Arguing otherwise else is sophistry, misleading, and -given the Bush administration’s track record- should give us all pause.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:13 pmOK.. So he agrees that the constitution says that there is a right of habeas corpus… just not to “individualsâ€.
WTF?
Comment by Art — January 19, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Doesn’t this fall right in line with the provisions of the Military Detainee Act? You know, the one in which the President gets to decide who is an enemy combatant and thus does not get the right to H.C.?
And I’d like to take a moment to remind everyone that Bush doesn’t give a damn about the treatment of our troops (and possibly non-miltary persons) should they be detained on foreign soil. He told David Gregory that if other nations would adopt the provisions of the MDA, the world would be a better place. The exchange:
David Gregory: “Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules (ask) … If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea and they were roughed up and those governments said, ‘Well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions,’ and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that as commander in chief?”
Bush: “My reaction is that if the nations such as those you name adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act,” he said “the world would be better … We’re trying to clarify law. We’re trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards. And let me just repeat: We can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don’t have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward.”
January 19th, 2007 at 3:22 pmIsn’t Habeus part of the Common Law that much of our culture and government is based upon>?
January 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pmAlberto is a dumb as”!That is for sure.He doesnt meet the requirments for his position.I guess the framers just meant they had the right to Habeas Corpus.The fact that he sugested that and the stuff this mob has passed, should now have all Americans in a state of RED alert, enemy inside the gates,go buy some guns and ammo.Somewhere along those safety lines.The intensions are not good for our future.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pmForTruth, he CAN’T be right, technically or otherwise. I agree, this one is so scary, both in and of itself, but also because it’s obvious that he doesn’t even know, understand, or care about the Constitition. He only looks at it in relation to how much he can take away from our rights in order to protect what Bushco is doing. The implications of this are enormous and devastating. And when you see all of the other shite going on, whether it’s the idiot at Gitmo (who should have been fired!) who thinks that the lawyers for the detainees should be targeted and punished by CEOs of major corporations, or the removal of the US Attorneys who want to prosecute Bush’s buddies, every day something new comes up where now the judicial branch is under attack. This administration is whittling away at both of the other branches, just so that he can become the dictator he apparently wanted to be. This would be bad enough even WITHOUT Iraq, Iran, whoever else is next on Bush’s hit list (Syria?) Aaagghhh! (I think I need my meds upped!)
Sorry, did I bring you back down again?
January 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pmNOTICE how these guys, Gonzales and Bush, think everything is funny. Why is Gonzales laughing? It is not a time to be laughing. When someone tells a joke you laugh. This is not a normal reaction to being put in your place in front of a court in a very serious manner. It identifies a person out of touch with their emotions, or confused about their emotions, or a lack of the understanding of emotions. Gonzales is clearly Psychopathic.
Comment by USA — January 19, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Notice? Yes I do. Gonzo’s and Bush’s behavior — laughing in such circumstances — is indicative, I believe, of someone thinking “what idiots you all are!” As in Gonzo to Specter: “You are wasting my time. There’s nothing you can do to stop us.”
January 19th, 2007 at 3:27 pm#113, USA, I think they’re all taught how to smirk when they join this administration. (Bush) “No matter what questions they ask ya, just smirk, it always works for me! Hehe!”
January 19th, 2007 at 3:29 pmGonzo is just being consistent. Flashback to 2/9/06 as posted on TP”:
In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine that the legal requirement for Bush’s domestic wiretapping program is no lower than the “probable cause†requirement of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:36 pm.
.
.
But the Justice Department told a different story to the FISA Court judges in order to get their approval of the program. According to the Washington Post, former Attorney General John Ashcroft and former NSA Director Michael Hayden told the FISA Court that the “probable cause†legal burden was too difficult to meet:
AG has appointed himself to the SCOTUS. His interpretation of the writ of habeus corpus is without precedent. How much does it take to impeach him for his obvious lack of understanding and blatant flouting of the Constitution to which he has sworn to uphold.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:37 pmFirst of all we are a REPUPLIC and NOT a democracy. I say it’s about time to draft a new Declaration of Independence and a new Constitution.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:41 pmRUCerious, I think it goes back to the Magna Carta.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:47 pmI’m amused that all the “progressives” here pretend to respect the Constitution.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:50 pmlast night on olberman, some guy (sorry) said that gonzo was acting
“more general than attorneyâ€â€¦
where DID he get his law degree?
Comment by katy — January 19, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Katy, that’s Jonathan Turley, the Constitutional law expert that Keith usually has on. Wayne and I thought his “more general than attorney” was perfect!
January 19th, 2007 at 3:52 pmKC,
It’s simple. They have declared war on us, the United States citizenry. We do have the right to self defense and the right to turn over our government, in fact, it’s our duty. I suggest we all read the Declaration of Independance and the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Here is what the Decalration of Independance says about what we should do when people like this take power:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Lock and load people… long live the UNited States of America!!
January 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pmThere is somewhat of a contradiction here. How can a “privilege” not exist if it cannot be suspended? But how can a “privilege” be “suspended” if that privilege was never given? Confusing.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pmIt’s a very fine point but the AG is correct. The Constitution does not in fact grant anyone the right of habeas corpus. I don’t think there can be any real argument of the letter. The argument lies in intent, and as was posted previously, whether or not the privilege is assumed to exist if it can be suspended.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:21 pmWhat Gonzales has said: That since the Constitution doesn’t explicitly spell it out that all US Citizens have the rights of Habeas Corpus “inherently” means that NOBODY has those rights unless they’re given by the government at their pleasure.
You Me… everyone is at risk and he is working to create a dictatorship her in America.
This opinion alone makes Gonzales unfit to hold the position of Attorney General. Given Bushes Track Record and past statements it’s fairly certain that bush also holds this opinion and MUST BE IMPEACHED ASAP.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:27 pmThe Constitution cannot grant the right of Habeas Corpus because it does not have the power to do so. Habeas Corpus is an inherent right. What the Constitution says is that this natural right shall not be taken away.
Gonzales wants us to think that if a right isn’t enumerated in the Constitution or its Amendments, then we don’t have that right. Maybe he should read this:
“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…”
January 19th, 2007 at 4:34 pm#130 katy
January 19th, 2007 at 4:36 pmJonathan Turley is a professor at George Washington University. He earned his BS at U of Chicago and later, a law degree at Northwestern. Before that he was a prof at Tulane. He was also a congressional page. I am going to guess he is in his late 40’s.
However wrong I think he is, don’t just dismiss his argument.:
“It is no more irrational to guard against the ’suspension’ abuse, without guaranteeing any particular habeas right, than it is, in the Equal Protection Clause to guard against unequal application of the laws without guaranteeing any particular law which enjoys that protection”
-Justice Salia in INS v. St. CYR (2001)
The part that Scalia, and Gonzales miss here, is that the Bill of Rights does not go about conferring things like free speech. Rather, it says “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” Rights are presumed to exist, as God-given/Natural/etc, and it is only their revocation that must be addressed.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:42 pmWOW, you people are fools. Does it really take an attorney to point out to all of you that the constitution clearly states that it’s not a right, it’s a privledge? Are you people blind?
I bet out in the real world all of you would keep your mouths shut because you know you’d be made fools of in front of other people, whereas here on the internet you can speak your (empty) minds and suffer no such consequences.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:45 pmIt seems that the terrorists and their allies in the US have won a great victory over freedom. What makes this victory so great and utterly devastating is that it was won in the heart of a country that once upon a time embodied a dream of freedom called America.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:45 pm[…] I just read this transcript on Think Progress. I obviously have my opinion about what Gonzo said, but I am more interested in knowing your thoguhts… SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there’s an express constitutional provision that it can’t be suspended, and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees. […]
January 19th, 2007 at 4:49 pmThis is almost as bad as the NSA chief standing at a podium exclaiming that the 4th amendment does not require probable cause, but that you just need to “be reasonable”.
If our top officials don’t know or care about the constitution, or try to reinterpret it for their convenience, I would think that would mean the constitution is in jeopardy.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:53 pmYou are all just a composition of fools, who look upon govt. and pick out comments that support what you have already decided. Your Bush-bashing is as unintelligent as it has ever been. Talk about screwed logic? How about idiots such as yourselves that try to protect enemy combatants and have no problem trying to undermine US efforts just because you you can’t stop crying that we didn’t pick your guy for prez… twice!
January 19th, 2007 at 4:54 pmGONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.†It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —”
Mr. Logic sez: WOW, you people are fools. Does it really take an attorney to point out to all of you that the constitution clearly states that it’s not a right, it’s a privledge? Are you people blind?
Mr. Logic, are you disputing what your Attorney General says? Where exactly in the Constitution does it say “Habeus Corpus is not a right, it’s a privilege”?
Nice logic.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:01 pm#133 Shane Wilks
It’s a very fine point but the AG is correct. The Constitution does not in fact grant anyone the right of habeas corpus. I don’t think there can be any real argument of the letter. The argument lies in intent, and as was posted previously, whether or not the privilege is assumed to exist if it can be suspended.
I think the hair that Gonzales is trying to split is between “suspending” and “denying”. He seems to be saying that no, we’re not suspending habeas corpus, which would imply that it was being lifted for everyone. And then he leaves unsaid that they’re merely denying it to certain people.
I don’t think that would wash with the Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn’t say “shall not be suspended for everyone“. It just says “shall not be suspended”. I think a constitutional scholar could safely argue that it would require more language than is there to allow for suspension of habeas corpus for certain groups or individuals of the president’s choosing.
Regardless, how is it that somebody hasn’t just punched that smirking little spud square in the face?
January 19th, 2007 at 5:04 pmI love how the proof that it’s a “Right” clearly says it’s a “Privilege”.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:05 pmBKG It gets worse! I was selected for jury duty and this clown was accused of DUI, and, and, and… he had an attorney there defending him!
Can you imagine that? The guy was DUI and some lawyer guy was defending his right to a free trial.
I am with you dude, if they are accused of being enemy combatants, let’s just shoot the bastards right now.
And it’s just too bad that some were already turned loose because some asshole lawyer found evidence that maybe, just maybe, they weren’t enemy combatants.
Well, I say hell! Maybe they were after all! Kill them all and let our good lord Jebus figure it out.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:05 pm[…] The essence of tyranny? If you want to know where the Bush administration is coming from, consider where Alberto Gonzales went with the rhetoric yesterday. “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.†[…]
January 19th, 2007 at 5:06 pmThis is the same argument that lead to the Civil War. The argument that lead to the civil war was the section of the Constitution that says that any power not granted to the Federal Government is relegated to the State. The Constitution does not explicitly grant the right of secession to the Federal government, so the argument was that the states had that power. The other side argued that secession is not legal period. Several states seceded and the rest is history.
The argument that the Attorney General makes here is very similar. The Constitution does not say “All citizens are granted the right of habeas.” That is a true statement. Specter is arguing that there is a statement that states that habeas can not be removed except for invasion or rebellion. President Lincoln suspended habeas for the exact reason of rebellion. The Attorney General is merely pointing out that while the rules for taking away habeas are given, the rules for who is granted habeas in the first place are not.
Most constitutional arguments are very complicated such as this. The men who initially constructed our government foresaw such issues, which is why we have three branches of the government to allow for these types of issues to be sorted out.
These proceedings are part of that process to sort out complicated constitutional issues. The thing that is great about America is that we have such a process, and it works very well. If this were Venezuela, this would not be the case.
If we can’t have such discussions, our system of government will never work. There are going to be differences in how people interpret our laws and constitution, as there should be. What makes our system so great is that we have a chance to debate these issues without violence, and with an even hand.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:12 pmThe Constitution does not grant people rights. It does limit what the government can do, though. Government does not give rights to the people, rather, government only exists by the will of the people. This is made clear in Amendments IX and X of the Bill of Rights. The 9th amendment states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The 10th Amendment states: “the powers not delegated to the United States by Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That is why the Bill of rights is written in the negative. for example, the 1st Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or protecting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;… The Constitution doesn’t grant the people the right of free exercise of religion or speech, or press. It’s understood that people have these rights. Instead, the Constitution prohibits the Government from infringing on these rights. It’s exactly the same with Habeas Corpus.
Gonzalez thinks we are all owned by the government. It’s always been the other way around, until now I guess. Remember, the preamble of the Constitution states: “We The People, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice…. and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
That’s right, WE THE PEOPLE.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:13 pm[…] Think Progress » Gonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution’ YIKES! I don’t think we can rid ourselves of the current administration soon enough… (tags: politics habeuscorpus) […]
January 19th, 2007 at 5:13 pm#143 BKG
How about idiots such as yourselves that try to protect enemy combatants and have no problem trying to undermine US efforts just because you you can’t stop crying that we didn’t pick your guy for prez… twice!
1) It’s not all enemy combatants who are being denied their rights. If you want to try and argue that everyone who has been thrown into Gitmo is guilty, then why have we released hundreds of prisoners from there after holding them without charges for years? And not just innocent Afghanis or others from the Middle East. We’ve done that with Canadians, Germans, and even Americans. Maybe you don’t mind seeing your country turn into Stalin’s Soviet Union. But we do!
2) We didn’t pick