(POL) US AG says he doesn't believe Constitution demands habeas corpus

[SirFozzie]

I'm surprised that it took over a week to make the news.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml

Consider the source, please however, but if the quotes are true, then this is the most blatant attempts to rip up the constitution I have ever seen.

In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every American.

The key section:

There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.

Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.

“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.”

“You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said.

[SirFozzie]

Could someone get rid of the "There is no expre" section from the title?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Could someone get rid of the "There is no expre" section from the title?

If you click on Edit, then Advanced, then you can edit the title.

[John Galt]

That news story really makes a total mash of the law (and unfortunately it is repeated in the title of this thread). Habeas corpus rights have NOTHING to do with a right to a "fair trial." A habeas right, among other things, is afforded persons detained the right to be heard. That right to be heard has nothing to do with a "trial," much less a "fair" one. It simply means a person can be heard before a judge so that they are not just hidden away by a government without recourse.

With that being said, what Gonzales said is chilling and a bizarre (and virtually unprecedented) reading of the Constitution. Habeas rights have existed since the Fourteenth Century in English common law socities. There is no doubt that the framers of the constitution assumed a habeas right existed when they drafted the relevant clause in the Constitution. For Gonzales to say habeas rights don't necessarily exist for anyone in America (note he is not talking about detainees) is just hogwash.

[BishopMVP]

[blatantly stolen from some blog]There's also no specification that the judicial branch is the only one that can issue warrants, so they can just get around the FISA court that way.[/blatant stealing]

Daily Show and Colbert were all over this nights ago

EDIT - Oh, and Gonzalez is an idiot. I would have failed high school Con Law if I tried pulling this shit.

[BrianD]

If the Constitution has a prohibition against taking away a right, doesn't that imply that the right exists? There would be no need to prevent taking away a non-existent right.

[Subby]

Attorney General Gonzlaes was at my kids' baptism. That church has since split from the Episcopal Church of the US and we have left the parrish but I am pretty sure his family still attends.

/non-sequitir

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BrianD

If the Constitution has a prohibition against taking away a right, doesn't that imply that the right exists? There would be no need to prevent taking away a non-existent right.

And that'd be the common sense that Specter was alluding to. Gonzales is such an idiot.

[KWhit]

You have got to be kidding me.

Sigh.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by cartman

If you click on Edit, then Advanced, then you can edit the title.

Thanks. Edited that and changed the topic to further clarify Gonzales's remarks

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, this is exactly what liberals do when they try to extend rights enjoyed by U.S. citizens onto illegal aliens and foreign war criminals. So why the surprise now when others now want to alter the constitution for their own purposes? Liberals opened the door for it to happen.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, this is exactly what liberals do when they try to extend rights enjoyed by U.S. citizens onto illegal aliens and foreign war criminals. So why the surprise now when others now want to alter the constitution for their own purposes? Liberals opened the door for it to happen.

Ummm.. huh?

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, this is exactly what liberals do when they try to extend rights enjoyed by U.S. citizens onto illegal aliens and foreign war criminals. So why the surprise now when others now want to alter the constitution for their own purposes? Liberals opened the door for it to happen.

Bwahahahaha. Shoulda known Boobala Bubba would try to justify this.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Ummm.. huh?

When you allow the constitution to be altered for nothing other than a 'point-of-view', say like in the case of abortion in Roe vs. Wade where phony things are found within the 'living document' that never really existed...you open the door for anyone to basically do anything they want to do to the document. This is just the next step. Should be no surprise.

[SirFozzie]

How you can spout that crap with a straight face is one of the mysteries of the world, Boobies.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

How you can spout that crap with a straight face is one of the mysteries of the world, Boobies.

Well, what is really funny is how types like you that were all for 'new found rights' within the constitution are now suddenly all 'bent out of shape' that someone else could find a way to manipulate it for their own purposes.

[Ksyrup]

Subby's non-sequitur comment was apparently misplaced in this thread.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, what is really funny is how types like you that were all for 'new found rights' within the constitution are now suddenly all 'bent out of shape' that someone else could find a way to manipulate it for their own purposes.

Ah. The classic "He hit me first" defense.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Ah. The classic "He hit me first" defense.

Sorry, just strikes me as really funny/ironic. The constitution has been trashed beyond recognition, yet this one point suddenly wants to bring your types out of the 'woodwork' in outrage. Just depends on whose 'ox is gored', really.

[cartman]

So, Arlen Specter is a liberal, one of "those types"? Wow, I never knew...

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by cartman

So, Arlen Specter is a liberal, one of "those types"? Wow, I never knew...

LOL, if you don't know Arlen Specter is a liberal nothing more can be said for you.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

LOL, if you don't know Arlen Specter is a liberal nothing more can be said for you.

Liberal, in this case, meaning anyone who doesn't want to turn the US into a religious oligarchy.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

LOL, if you don't know Arlen Specter is a liberal nothing more can be said for you.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously...

If you think habeas corpus is a right/left issue, then you are seriously delusional.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Liberal, in this case, meaning anyone who doesn't want to turn the US into a religious oligarchy.

One of the Prez's many sins vs. conservatives is that he backed Specter over a true conservative in the primaries last time Specter ran. Specter made promises then that he would 'behave' (act more Republican than Democrat). Yeah, sure he will.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by cartman

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously...

If you think habeas corpus is a right/left issue, then you are seriously delusional.

Didn't say it was a left/right issue. Only said that the left has been playing 'fast and loose' with the intent, if not the actual content, of the constitution for decades. Why would this suddenly be so surprising? Because its being done by (supposed) conservatives and not liberals this time.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

When you allow the constitution to be altered for nothing other than a 'point-of-view', say like in the case of abortion in Roe vs. Wade where phony things are found within the 'living document' that never really existed...you open the door for anyone to basically do anything they want to do to the document. This is just the next step. Should be no surprise.

I'm going to actually attempt to discuss this with you... And I'm someone that I think most people on the board would characterize as right leaning...

First off, the whole "he did it first" argument is so flawed it's laughable. You can't take the stance of a strict interpretation in one breath and then defend it being manipulated in the next when it is done by "your side".

The difference here, at any rate, is that Roe vs. Wade was interpretting a vague statement in the constitution. FWIW, and i do NOT want to debate this, I disagree with Roe vs. Wade. However, what Gonzalez is doing here is directly going against something that is very clearly stated in the Constitution.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I'm going to actually attempt to discuss this with you... And I'm someone that I think most people on the board would characterize as right leaning...

First off, the whole "he did it first" argument is so flawed it's laughable. You can't take the stance of a strict interpretation in one breath and then defend it being manipulated in the next when it is done by "your side".

The difference here, at any rate, is that Roe vs. Wade was interpretting a vague statement in the constitution. FWIW, and i do NOT want to debate this, I disagree with Roe vs. Wade. However, what Gonzalez is doing here is directly going against something that is very clearly stated in the Constitution.

Well, what part about congress making no law 'abridging free speech' in the first amendment didn't congress and the courts understand when they allowed the 'campaign finance reform bill' to pass? Suddenly pornagraphy is free speech but actual free speech within 60 days of an election is not? Whose delusional?

As we speak, some liberals of congress are attempting to bring back the 'fairness doctrine.' This means some arbitrary medium somewheres will be allowed to make subjective judgements on what is and is not 'acceptable' speech in television and radio. This is not 'abridging' free speech? Just two other examples of what I'm talking about.

How about U.S. citizens rights for illegal aliens and foreign war criminals? Just a few 'altered constitutional' issues that come to mind.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, what part about congress making no law 'abridging free speech' in the first amendment didn't congress and the courts understand when they allowed the 'campaign finance reform bill' to pass? Suddenly pornagraphy is free speech but actual free speech within 60 days of an election is not? Whose delusional?

As we speak, some liberals of congress are attempting to bring back the 'fairness doctrine.' This means some arbitrary medium somewheres will be allowed to make subjective judgements on what is and is not 'acceptable' speech in television and radio. This is not 'abridging' free speech? Just two other examples of what I'm talking about.

How about U.S. citizens rights for illegal aliens and foreign war criminals? Just a few 'altered constitutional' issues that come to mind.

Why do you never reply to the question you were asked? You invariably start throwing in other tangents that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If you can point me to numerous people on both sides of the aisle that support the viewpoint of AG Gonzalez regarding habeas corpus, then you might have an argument. Until then, you are just on an anti-liberal rant that does not add anything to the discussion.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, what part about congress making no law 'abridging free speech' in the first amendment didn't congress and the courts understand when they allowed the 'campaign finance reform bill' to pass? Suddenly pornagraphy is free speech but actual free speech within 60 days of an election is not? Whose delusional?

As we speak, some liberals of congress are attempting to bring back the 'fairness doctrine.' This means some arbitrary medium somewheres will be allowed to make subjective judgements on what is and is not 'acceptable' speech in television and radio. This is not 'abridging' free speech? Just two other examples of what I'm talking about.

How about U.S. citizens rights for illegal aliens and foreign war criminals? Just a few 'altered constitutional' issues that come to mind.

You just LOVE shifting the argument, don't you?

I'm not saying there aren't things out there that seem to go against the constitutional model.

However...

Either you're for a strict interpretation of the constitution or you're not. You can't have it both ways. If you're saying you're no longer for following the constitution, then let's have at it... Then we can discuss the merits of one event vs. another.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by cartman

Why do you never reply to the question you were asked? You invariably start throwing in other tangents that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If you can point me to numerous people on both sides of the aisle that support the viewpoint of AG Gonzalez regarding habeas corpus, then you might have an argument. Until then, you are just on an anti-liberal rant that does not add anything to the discussion.

I'll just refer to my original point: Its just funny to me that this particular issue is causing the 'uproar' when the method in question (find what you want to within the constitution to suite your purposes) has been going on for some time now.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by wade moore

You just LOVE shifting the argument, don't you?

I'm not saying there aren't things out there that seem to go against the constitutional model.

However...

Either you're for a strict interpretation of the constitution or you're not. You can't have it both ways. If you're saying you're no longer for following the constitution, then let's have at it... Then we can discuss the merits of one event vs. another.

I'll side with the Federalists. But many of those bemoaning this newest developement by our AG find those same Federalists as 'bad guys' or worse.' Ironic.

BTW, nowhere have I said that I agree with what the AG is doing. I don't.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

I'll side with the Federalists. But many of those bemoaning this newest developement by our AG find those same Federalists as 'bad guys' or worse.' Ironic.

Ok, I see your point.

I think the argument would be that this is far more disturbing than the specific examples that you've mentioned. Even when I disagree withs ome of the things you mentioned, I would agree that this is far worse than any of them.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Ok, I see your point.

I think the argument would be that this is far more disturbing than the specific examples that you've mentioned. Even when I disagree withs ome of the things you mentioned, I would agree that this is far worse than any of them.

Yes, but I see it as just the continuing of the trend. Regardless of who is in power.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Yes, but I see it as just the continuing of the trend. Regardless of whose in power.

There are levels to it. Minor changes or "exceptions" is different than sweeping statements that imply tha bility to arbitrarily take away rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Everyone has a breaking point of when it "goes to far".. this just happens to be past that point for many people whereas the others are not.

[cartman]

I'm pretty sure the root cause of the uproar is that the AG's statement is a spectacularly bad viewpoint, not because "liberals" are surprised that it's being done by a "conservative".

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Bubba enter thread. I leave it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by wade moore

There are levels to it. Minor changes or "exceptions" is different than sweeping statements that imply tha bility to arbitrarily take away rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Bingo. Interpretations of things that are vague in the Constitution (ie, is financing of campaigns actually "speech"), arguments can be made for both sides. Things that are explicitly stated in the document, it is harder to go against the clear words.

[John Galt]

And even though Bubba is pretty much completely wrong and out of it as usual, he is even moreso in this case. It isn't really relevant who started the so-called "living constitution." But if you want to find the case that probably started the "discovering of rights" in the Constitution, you might want to research Lochner v. New York and its progeny. I'll give you a little teaser about it - it wasn't liberals who found a "right to free contract" in the 14th Amendment. But feel free to blame the "liberals" for everything.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by John Galt

And even though Bubba is pretty much completely wrong and out of it as usual, he is even moreso in this case. It isn't really relevant who started the so-called "living constitution." But if you want to find the case that probably started the "discovering of rights" in the Constitution, you might want to research Lochner v. New York and its progeny. I'll give you a little teaser about it - it wasn't liberals who found a "right to free contract" in the 14th Amendment. But feel free to blame the "liberals" for everything.

I wasn't even touching any of this part of his argument because I am admittedly ignorant on the history of interpreting the Constitution.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by John Galt

And even though Bubba is pretty much completely wrong and out of it as usual, he is even moreso in this case. It isn't really relevant who started the so-called "living constitution." But if you want to find the case that probably started the "discovering of rights" in the Constitution, you might want to research Lochner v. New York and its progeny. I'll give you a little teaser about it - it wasn't liberals who found a "right to free contract" in the 14th Amendment. But feel free to blame the "liberals" for everything.

I believe that I said it was bad for either side to be mucking with with great work for their own purposes. But it cannot be denied that liberals have a far greater track record in mucking than the conservatives do.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

I believe that I said it was bad for either side to be mucking with with great work for their own purposes. But it cannot be denied that liberals have a far greater track record in mucking than the conservatives do.

If there is one thing you have proven in your time here, it's that anything can be denied.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Bubba enter thread. I leave it.

LOL, I don't see your previous post(s). Where were you in it before to leave it?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

I believe that I said it was bad for either side to be mucking with with great work for their own purposes. But it cannot be denied that liberals have a far greater track record in mucking than the conservatives do.

Bubba, by the mere fact that you state something, it can, and should, be denied.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by wade moore

If there is one thing you have proven in your time here, it's that anything can be denied.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Bubba, by the mere fact that you state something, it can, and should, be denied.

Nice.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by wade moore

If there is one thing you have proven in your time here, it's that anything can be denied.

Why...thankyou!

Its really too funny. You cannot pay for this kind of entertainment. And to think I was going to dissappear for awhile. Too many laughs.

[QuikSand]

Bubba is who we thought he was.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Bubba is who we thought he was.

[Huckleberry]

1.) Republican-appointed Attorney General blatantly misreads the Constitution.
2.) People mock him for his stupidity.
3.) Bubba Wheels yells about how liberals started it.
4.) John Galt points out liberals didn't start it.
5.) Bubba Wheels says yeah, but they've done it more.

Is that where we are?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

1.) Republican-appointed Attorney General blatantly misreads the Constitution.
2.) People mock him for his stupidity.
3.) Bubba Wheels yells about how liberals started it.
4.) John Galt points out liberals didn't start it.
5.) Bubba Wheels says yeah, but they've done it more.
6.) Bubba Wheels implies that FOFC is entertaining because everyone but him is clueless.

Is that where we are?

Fixed it for ya.

[Subby]

7) Bubba Wheels has roleplay sex with polar bear