By Gonzales' reasoning, you have NO rights that the constitution does not specifically

[OregonBlue]

say you have. I believe that it is the other way around. You have all rights that are not specifically denied by the constitution or by law (state, federal, etc.). Am I right or is he? I believe that Scalia has also maintained that we DO NOT have rights that the constitution does not say we have. Doesn't this claim by the Administration create a constitutional crisis?

Here is Gonzales' reasoning:

Edited on Thu Jan-18-07 10:01 AM by underpants
verbatim I am transcribing this from the video
ON EDIT- corrected typo

Gonzo just before this exchange "Just because they talked about the Constitutional right to habeas corpus doesn't mean the decision was about the Constitutional right to habeas corpus"


"There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution, there is a prohibition against taking it away"


Specter: "now wait a minute wait a minute the Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?"

Gonzo: "I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus it doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended"

Specter: "You may treading on your interdiction of violating common sense"

[evlbstrd]

1. Pretzel logic.

They depend on the fact that most Americans don't know the Constitution. Fortunately, Specter does.

[LSparkle]

9. Sidebar: good album, "Pretzel Logic" (Steely Dan)

I need to listen to that again ...

[evlbstrd]

15. Oh, yeah.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

24. Fucking awesome album.

:thumbsup:

[hfojvt]

33. Someone mentions the Dan

and you appear. It's like magic. I'm gonna go dis them in my thread, see if you will appear there.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

35. I have 'Dangar. I can sense it a mile away.

:P

[shain from kane]

27. Gonzo is like Rikki, except he also lost his marbles.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Except that the Constitution itself calls Gonzales a big, fat liar

Behold, the most ignored part of the United States Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. -- Amendment IX.

[ProfessorGAC]

4. That's What I Said Too

As soon as i read what Gonzales said, i thought "Did he ever actually read the constitution?" What he's saying and what the constitution says are in direct conflict.
The Professor

[BuyingThyme]

5. Nitpicker.

[Disturbed]

8. "the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended"

If it shall not be suspended that means every American Citizen is entitled to it. Gonzo needs to be Impeached forthwith!

[NewJeffCT]

18. we're not talking about somebody in the reality-based community

remember - this is the crowd that watches Fox News & CNN on TV and listens to Rush, Savage & Ingraham on the radio.

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. Not to nitpick, but the the Constitution calls habeas corpus a priviledge, not a right

Albeit a priviledge that shall not be suspended "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." (Article I, Sec. 9, para. 2, United States Constitution

[Zodiak]

38. Thanks Techbear

That is the magic word...Amendment IX...part of the basic bill of rights.

Every civic student is taught that, much less a lawyer that crawls all the way to the position of Attorney General.

[BuyingThyme]

3. If Dems weren't cowards, they'd be impeaching this fuck, not

interviewing him.

[AndyA]

7. That's exactly right. This man has failed to perform his duties, and has

allowed the erosion of the Constitution, which he is upheld to protect.

[BuyingThyme]

12. Every day the Dems allow this animal to remain in office,

the more people become potential victims.

There's no excuse anymore; if they don't stand up, the Democrats are no better than the Republicans.

[alfredo]

17. Doesn't the "Unitary Executive" deny congress the right to

impeach members of the executive branch?

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. I think you're right --

here, specifically, he's saying that someone must determine if you have the right to habeus corpus, and if that has been determined, it cannot then be taken away. Of course, imprisonment without charges or access to a court would prevent someone making such a ruling, requiring you to file for habeus corpus so you can present your case, but since your case has not been ruled on you may be legitimately prevented from filing.

He probably thinks he is very clever.

[Pab Sungenis]

10. Habeas is one of the most sacred rights in our Constitution.

In fact, it's so sacred it was enshrined in the original text, before the Bill of Rights was drafted.

Article I, Section 9: "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."

[NYC Liberal]

11. By that logic, we don't have freedom of speech.

After all, the Constitution doesn't say "The people have the right of freedom of speech," it says that "Congress shall make no law abridging" it. Similar wording, so if you apply Gonzo's logic, no freedom of speech exists.

Not to mention the Ninth Amendment, which says that just because a right isn't specifically listed doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and it can't be denied. So even IF you accept that the right to writ of habeas corpus isn't listed, it's still protected by the Ninth Amendment.

[BuyingThyme]

14. Exactly. This guy just wrote his own impeachments articles.

He made it crystal clear that he has no interest in protecting the Constitution.

But it looks like the stupid Dems weren't taking notes.

[HereSince1628]

30. By logic like that you wonder just how the hell he passed an LSAT

let alone the state bar examination of some state.

This guy is trying to enslave us. The fight to prevent that must be vigorous.

[Generator]

13. My impression of Gonzalez is that he is not very bright

And an evil one too. He's spent years attached to Bush Jr. which says it all for me. Either really dumb-see Harriet Meirs-or medium dumb as Gonzalez. I think he believes that bullshit that comes out of his mouth. And he scares the shit out of me as he should everyone with a heart.

[acmejack]

19. I second that...

If you can't take something away, then obviously you had it to take away in the first place. Even a dumb SOB like me can figure that out. Ergo, Gonzo is even dumber than I am. Really bad news for Gonzo!

[NewJeffCT]

16. The right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed

Hmm, it says the rights will not be infringed... does not say we have the right to keep & bear arms. So, therefore, using Alberto-logic, we have no right to bear arms.

[underpants]

26. but but but

it says "The right to bear arms..." which is a direct statement not like "The right to vote..." oh hold it

Uh never mind

[NewJeffCT]

39. It's not really the "Bill of Rights"

It's the "Bill of Things That Cannot be Taken Away, Abridged, Infringed or Violated"

[NewJeffCT]

20. Using that logic, there goes the bill of rights

Amendment 4:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

it doesn't say we have those rights, only that they won't be violated.

[Dora]

22. What part of "self-evident" does he not understand? N/T

[citygal]

23. Gonzo is such a disappointment and an embarrassment to the legal community.

When Bush stole the election in 2000, I thought Gonzo had some decency. Boy was I wrong.

[Bobbie Jo]

25. Ignorance of the law is no defense.....

Nor is the willful misinterpretation....:grr:

[Jack Rabbit]

28. One may want to ask him about the First Amendment

Would he say that while Congress is prohibited from enacting legislation abridging the freedom of speech, there is not explicit right to freedom of speech?

This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard from a ranking member of the executive branch since President Ford stated in a debate with Mr. Carter that Poland was not then part of the Soviet sphere of influence.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

29. Corporate "personhood" isn't mentioned in the Constitution

And yet, corporations are deemed persons, with the right to sue and be sued and with the due process protection that natural persons enjoy under the 14th amendement. But I guess Mr. Gonzales wouldn't want to revoke this right that corporations enjoy even though there's no specific mention in the Constitution.

[acmejack]

32. By Jove, I think you've got it!

You appear to understand Mr. Gonzales' interpretation of the Document perfectly.

[RufusTFirefly]

31. BushCo -- Like the worst message board trolls

Gonzo, Rumsfeld, and the CIA's Hayden have all made great use of fallacies, convolution, and outright denial of reality to tie their interrogators into needless rhetorical knots. They're good at what they do because they're so shameless about it.

For those who've forgotten, Rumsfeld famously said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" while Hayden despite repeated prodding from a reporter denied that the Fourth Amendment says that search and seizure require probable cause, even though it's readily verifiable by consulting the Constitution.

QUESTION: I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But the --

HAYDEN: That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --

HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.

[mmonk]

34. The problem this loony toon has is that

when the constitution says a right cannot be taken away, it means you have that right (implicit). It also means neither he nor any other bush crony can legally take it from you (explicit). Anything else is loony rightwing anti-American fascist spew.

[KansDem]

36. What about our certain unalienable Rights endowed by our Creator?

I know this appears in the Bill of Rights, but wouldn't this have some bearing on whether or not we have a right to habeas corpus? Or do Bush and his AG determine what these unalienable rights are?

[WinkyDink]

37. He is stupidly evil. I guess we don't have the right to cross the street

on foot, as it's not in the Constitution.

But then, his real meaning is that BUSH has ALL rights NOT explicitly proscribed in the document. So if the Constitution doesn't STATE that the President cannot, say, send you to Gitmo, why then, he can.

OMG. I cannot bear his oleaginous voice another minute. Right now on C-span 3 he's claiming the right of Bush to INTERPRET a law.

So Bush is now the SCOTUS, too.