Gonzales says the Constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus

[Lochloosa]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/24/MNGDONO11O1.DTL

Gonzales says the Constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus
Attorney general's remarks on citizens' right astound the chair of Senate judiciary panel

One of the Bush administration's most far-reaching assertions of government power was revealed quietly last week when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified that habeas corpus -- the right to go to federal court and challenge one's imprisonment -- is not protected by the Constitution.

"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas,'' Gonzales told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17.

Gonzales acknowledged that the Constitution declares "habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless ... in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.'' But he insisted that "there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.''

Specter was incredulous, asking how the Constitution could bar the suspension of a right that didn't exist -- a right, he noted, that was first recognized in medieval England as a shield against the king's power to dispatch troublesome subjects to royal dungeons

[MessiahRp]

1. I hope people up there finally realize what they got by voting Gonzales in

I am a huge Russ Feingold fan but that may damn well have been the worst vote he has cast in office.

Rp

[OregonBlue]

2. Dems have to present a bill stating right to Habeas guaranteed and make Publicans

go on record. If they vote no, they'll hear from their constituents.

[ContraBass Black]

17. Why should they have to pass a bill that says what the Constitution says?

[tbyg52]

46. They shouldn't.

It's a sad world we're living in.

[OregonBlue]

56. Because the Constitution DOES NOT say it. It says it can't be suspended

which the pukes maintain means it's not necessarily guaranteed. The way to correct that is for both houses to pass a bill that says it is guanteed. Any puke who wants to argue against it will never be elected again. I guarantee. Even the Freepers are up in arms about Gonzales' statement.

[northzax]

3. Ah, I never thought I would say this...

but John Ashcroft was a much better AG...

[wryter2000]

6. Ye gods

You're right! <smacks head>

[colorado_ufo]

44. Gonzalez has not a single bit or care or compassion

for the American people. He is strictly in it for himself and is a shameless toady.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Excellent article. Am I wacky, though, or does the headline writer not realize...

that Specter is no longer the chair of the Judiciary Committee? Leahy of Vermont chairs that committee now.

[pepperbear]

5. true dat, but the exchange has more weight when it is between 2

from the same party.

[DeepModem Mom]

8. Yes, indeed. nt

[SpiralHawk]

7. "All your basic rights and freedoms are belong to us." - republicons

"So eat shit and die." - republicon "elite"

[dos pelos]

40. repeal legislation infringing The Bill of Rights....

and by this I mean the Military Commissions Act.The right of due process must not be violated.It is under attack by this administration.Unfortunately our toothless congress is complicit.Remember folks,if the first amendment doesn't work,the second amendment will.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

9. Let's see now

Habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

To say that it shall not be suspended implies that the right to habeas corpus exist in the first place, does it not? Otherwise how could you suspend something that doesn't exist?

[redqueen]

10. What does it frickin take to disbar someone?!

FCOL!

[usregimechange]

11. Amazing.

[Judi Lynn]

12. They appear to believe just their will power is all that's needed

to assume complete control anywhere, any time they want it.

Excerpts from the exchange between Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17:

Gonzales: There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away. ...

Specter: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in cases of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's 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. Doesn't say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except...

Specter: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It appears they really don't care how anyone likes their "reasoning."

[Pachamama]

13. Someone needs to explain to Gonzales that you can't take something away unless it exists...

Habeas Corpus doesn't need to be stated as a right - its a right since the Magna Carta that every civilized society has tried to follow. Habeas Corpus is referred to and implied in almost every writing from our founders and throughout any laws established.

How this man can argue that Habeas Corpus would only exist if it was specifically stated as being a right and granted is insane. Our founders are rolling in their graves....

[EFerrari]

22. Magical thinking stage?

[ck4829]

14. Medieval England is more progressive than the US?

Is that is what he is saying?

[Javaman]

15. Can someone just kick Abu gonzales in the nuts and get it over with? nt

[yellowcanine]

23. How about we just send him to Gitmo and not allow a petition of habeus, since it isn't in the

Constitution?

[LiberalFighter]

37. Send the SOB and all of his family from time they entered US illegally

back to Mexico

[arewenotdemo]

48. Odd. Nuts came to my mind as well.

I just think he should be suspended by them.

[glitch]

16. Habeas Corpus guarantees Habeas Corpus

It's part of our Common Law and the Constitution affirms it with the statement that "habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless ... in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

They are trying to create their own reality, and that only works if people buy into it. Of course if people don't buy into it then they go to force, just like any other sociopath.
And then society has to lock them up. Same old same old, yet every sociopath seems to think they are innovative.

[EFerrari]

21. We need to smudge the White House.

[glitch]

35. Yes, and every spiritual path on the planet needs to offer their form of exorcism.

Then we'll get in the (eco-friendly) fumigators. :hi:

[ozymandius]

18. Does this mean that a citizen can arrest him, detain him indefinitely?

Would he grin with pride that he would suffer the same intrusions and indefinite incarceration that they have sought to unleash on any citizen "they" deem objectionable to their view of how society should be structured?

Goebbels would be so proud.

[iggy456]

19. Tenth Admendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people.

Well, looks like the states or the people reserve this power.

[newyawker99]

55. Hi iggy456!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[EFerrari]

20. Torquemada: We owe back taxes to Crown.

I wonder what he thinks about the Magna Carta? The Code of Hammurabi?

:crazy:

[CJCRANE]

24. There needs to be a word

for something smaller than a loophole - because (whatever that word is) the neocons will always find it.

[SledDriver]

25. I'm not a Constituional scholar, but...

Doesn't the Ninth ammendment say (words to the effect) that it is not limited to only the rights listed?

Amendment IX

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

[yellowcanine]

39. exactly, and the fact that the Constitution explicitly specifies that habeus can only be suspended

in certain situations implies that it is one of those inherrent rights that does not have to be spelled out. The reasoning by Gonzoles, if permitted by the courts, would allow the Government to do just about anything it wanted as long as the Constitution did not prohibit it. The Founders recognized that this was an untenable notion, so they included the clause you cited. It is also a very good argument for the right to privacy as well, which wing nuts like George Will keep insisting is not in the Constitution.

[ohio2007]

49. Besides Abe Lincoln, has any other president actually done away with

due process of the law beside the current tyrant ?

[rock]

26. So I suppose Gonzales would argue

that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed does not imply that we have the right to bear arms (only that it won't be infringed if we do get the right)? Yes?

[0rganism]

28. it follows the same "reasoning" but you'll never hear Gonzales argue for it

For that matter, the contents of many amendments are subject to the same abusive rationale:
I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Well, just because congress can't make laws establishing state religions or abridging freedoms of speech or assembly doesn't imply the people have the right to free practice of religions, speech, assembly and whatnot, only that if they did exist congress couldn't make laws restricting them.

IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Similarly, this only applies if the right exists in the first place -- but nowhere is it expressly granted...

If I were a judge, I would laugh AG Gonzales out of the courtroom on general principles, let alone centuries of established caselaw.

[rock]

41. I know (I was being sarcastic)

He's bought and paid for.

[northzax]

54. funny enough

I have heard basically that statement (as to religion) that the Constitution prohibits CONGRESS from establishing a religion, not the individual states, or any other body, from doing so.

[0rganism]

27. it's an obvious 9th Amendment situation

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

Back in my stupid high school years, I used to wonder why the framers put that one in the Bill of Rights.

Now we have a perfect living example.

The right of habaeus corpus exists implicitly in that it shall not be suspended, and the constitution cannot be construed to indicate it as unretained simply because it is not enumerated.

[sakabatou]

29. .

:wow:

[Casablanca]

30. Let's get this crystal clear, Gonzoboy.

If you do not recognize the right to habeas corpus, then you have automatically justified the views of every survivalist, Republic of Texas wingnut, Freeman fringe lunatic, and gun-toting Crip to do whatever they have to do to protect themselves from the despotic power circle claiming to be "our" government.

You think you want to live in that kind of world, little Gonzoboy, because thinking people don't.

Don't try taking on the Founding Fathers kid - you don't have the intellectual ammo.

[Raydawg1234]

31. This is all to justify Gitmo and the secret prisons, all of which

are unconstitutional

[uppityperson]

32. Incredible. k&r for those who wonder the same as Specter.

[Demeter]

33. Let Gonzales Be The FIRST Stripped of Habeus Corpus Rights, Then

See how he argues after that.

[2Design]

34. is this guy from a third world dictatorship - he has completely trashed out

constitution and continues to do dicatorship crap - he has to go - he is not american

[annabanana]

36. There are no words to express my complete and utter

contempt for this toadie.

[tabasco]

38. OK, Gonzo, lemme get this straight ...

The Constitution says you can't suspend it except under certain very restricted situations, but that's not an express grant? Sounds like bullshit semantics to me.

Maybe we should just go along with you traitors and just pretend we don't have any rights, but

I don't think so!!

[truthisfreedom]

42. Let us see just how well this plays with the freepers. (Check this out!)

They believe our "freedums" are being protected by bushco, and now this.

On edit: Look! They hate it too!!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1772860/posts

This may be just what brings us and the freepers together.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

43. OH, SUPREME RULER, HOPE THIS STATEMENT BITES YOU BIGTIME

YOU WORK FOR US, NOT THE FREAK-IN-CHIEF.

:freak: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[donkeyotay]

45. How appropriate is this reference:

"first recognized in medieval England as a shield against the king's power to dispatch troublesome subjects to royal dungeons"

Now suspended as bush's toady continues to try to legalize torture. We should waterboard this mofo or impeach him. Or, as the Popular Wartime President used to say, "Whatever it takes." Apparently "whatever" includes waterboarding and destroying the Constitution.

[pat_k]

47. They brand themselves fascists. Just like Alito did when he. .

. . .offered his standard response -- that he couldn't offer an opinion; that he'd figure it out if it came to the Supreme Court -- to the hypothetical case Sen. Biden posed (i.e., If We the People, through our representatives in the Senate and House, passed a resolution prohibiting the President from ordering any sort of attack on Iran, would it be Constitutional for the President to order Bombs to be dropped on Iran?)

A Justice who doesn't know that the People are the sovereigns under the Constitution is an intolerable threat to our constitutional democracy.

After we cut off the head of the beast by impeaching Bush and Cheney, there are many more impeachments that must follow. Gonzales and Alito top the list.

[northofdenali]

50. Gonzo needs to be brought before the Bar Association.

Let him argue constitutional law with true constitutional law scholars. Asshole. :mad:

[fNord]

51. Lady's and Gentlemen welcome to the Fascist States of America n/t

:evilgrin:

[lovuian]

52. Days of Monte Cristo

where they locked you up for life to die in prison

Gonzales will go down as a Himler in history Its good to hear his views outloud

Congress has HIM as our ATTORNEY GENERAL

he was passed through and he needs to be removed

[OnionPatch]

53. I thought I didn't read that right at first!!

How can this be? How can we have such an imbecile in the highest law enforcement position in the country? OMG...our forefathers are rolling in their graves!!

Is there some way we can get rid of him? This is just too much. He's a fascist and doesn't even try to disguise it!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: