US Attorney General sees no Constitutional Right of Habeus Corpus.

.Shane.

Take it like a voter
Retired Moderator
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
9,233
Location
NorCal
Source...

So, basically, the AG of the United States says that we have no Constitutional right to Habeus Corpus. Not some crackpot who runs www.creepingsocialsim.com or www.govtwillgetus.com, but the ATTORNEY GENERAL of the US.

No matter how seemingly shocked I am by the brass of Bush, the Neocons, and the mess that constitutes the Executive Branch, they always find new ways of shocking me with their disregard of history, their desire to rewrite it, and their view that democracy and its safeguards (checks and balances, separation of powers, sep of church/state) as nuiscances to their goals.

Bold mine:

"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.

Later in the hearing, Gonzales described habeas corpus as "one of our most cherished rights'' and noted that Congress had protected that right in the 1789 law that established the federal court system. But he never budged from his position on the absence of constitutional protection -- a position that seemingly would leave Congress free to reduce habeas corpus rights or repeal them altogether.

If you all remember, the most recent version of the Patriot Act stripped away Habeus Corpus. Apparently, Senators Specter and Leahy are attempting to restore those rights (Source) I'm guessing the hearing had something to do w/ this bill?

Funny, isn't it usually the conservatives who are worried about big govt. usurping our rights?
 
I caught this last night - on the Colbert Report, of all things. I'm rather mystified by Gonzalez' logic as well. It's too bad that our legal system precludes SCOTUS from tying an AG down and slapping him till his (or her) face falls off.
 
I caught this last night - on the Colbert Report, of all things. I'm rather mystified by Gonzalez' logic as well. It's too bad that our legal system precludes SCOTUS from tying an AG down and slapping him till his (or her) face falls off.

A couple thoughts... first off, its pathetic that CBS/CNN/FOX/etc... give this no notice... that you're more likely to hear about "real" news on Colbert.

Secondly, its amazing that Bush/Gonzalez think that anything they don't like about the govt. they can just dismiss by signing statements or by writing a brief to justify themselves. Its flabbergasting.

Lastly, WTF did all the "small govt" and "don't trust the feds" Republicans go? Did they just cash in their moral relativism to be part of the ruling junta for 8 years?
 
What sort of an actual impact can the AG have on the US justice system? Is he just stating preferences, or can he actually make the way Habeas Corpus is defined and practiced change?
 
What sort of an actual impact can the AG have on the US justice system? Is he just stating preferences, or can he actually make the way Habeas Corpus is defined and practiced change?
In this context, not too much.

He can direct the federal lawyers to argue against H.C, but he cannot declare the changes. That's been set by legal precedent, and would take a law by Congress or a change in precedent (not easy to do).

-- Ravensfire
 
Okay. So if he has no way of implementing his views, then he's stating them for the benefit of someone else. Probably to support some controversial aspects of the Patriot act.
 
In this context, not too much.

He can direct the federal lawyers to argue against H.C, but he cannot declare the changes. That's been set by legal precedent, and would take a law by Congress or a change in precedent (not easy to do).

-- Ravensfire

Okay. So if he has no way of implementing his views, then he's stating them for the benefit of someone else. Probably to support some controversial aspects of the Patriot act.

Well, here's the rub.

Last year, in one of the acts that were passed there was language removing the right of Habeus corpus. So, I'm thinking they know how and when they want to use this law and Gonzalez is simply trying to establish a history of saying that it doesn't exist, so that they can self-reference themselves to justify their behavior.

They also like to write briefs then act however they want to, in disregard of law. For example Gonzalez wrote the memo that allowed us to violate the Geneva Convention and torture people. As I said, they haven't met a law that they right themselves a dispensation from.
 
A couple thoughts... first off, its pathetic that CBS/CNN/FOX/etc... give this no notice... that you're more likely to hear about "real" news on Colbert.

Secondly, its amazing that Bush/Gonzalez think that anything they don't like about the govt. they can just dismiss by signing statements or by writing a brief to justify themselves. Its flabbergasting.

Agreed.

.Shane. said:
Lastly, WTF did all the "small govt" and "don't trust the feds" Republicans go? Did they just cash in their moral relativism to be part of the ruling junta for 8 years?

They voted against Gore and Kerry - both of which gave no indication (as Democrats traditionally do not) that they were any better than Bush on that front. And remember, USA-PATRIOT passed 99-1. The 2006 congressional elections, I think, is when they have decided (too late, I agree) that Bush's abandonment of anything remotely resembling small government was complete, and beyond what a Democrat would have done. 2008 they won't have to worry about Bush, and fortunately I suspect the Republican candidates will not get an "OMG he/she may be horrible but a Democrat would be worse" free pass as Bush has in the last two. Unless Hillary is the Dem, that is.
 
Well, here's the rub.

Last year, in one of the acts that were passed there was language removing the right of Habeus corpus. So, I'm thinking they know how and when they want to use this law and Gonzalez is simply trying to establish a history of saying that it doesn't exist, so that they can self-reference themselves to justify their behavior.

I'd love to hear one of the CFC OT Reps comment on this.
 
Gonzales is indeed off his rocker on this, but I'd also point out that I don't give a rat's backside what went on in old time England. It's the Constitution that matters, Spectre boy, not ol' Longshanks.
 
Gonzales is indeed off his rocker on this, but I'd also point out that I don't give a rat's backside what went on in old time England. It's the Constitution that matters, Spectre boy, not ol' Longshanks.

Actually, it's universal human rights that matters, first and foremost, before the constitution or otherwise.

...Okay, so the constitution carries most of them, but that's besides the point. :p
 
Funny, isn't it usually the conservatives who are worried about big govt. usurping our rights?

Al Gonzalez is no conservative, many were not pleased with his nomination. Some (myself included) figured he's the AG just so the Bush Administration could say, "Hey, look! We've got a Hispanic in the Administration!" and hope that people ignore the horrible things he does under the specter of not saying anything against the minority...

A couple thoughts... first off, its pathetic that CBS/CNN/FOX/etc... give this no notice... that you're more likely to hear about "real" news on Colbert.

Agreed.

Secondly, its amazing that Bush/Gonzalez think that anything they don't like about the govt. they can just dismiss by signing statements or by writing a brief to justify themselves. Its flabbergasting.

It's worked pretty well so far, and they haven't been called out on it much. As you noted, none of the major news networks decided it was noteworthy.

Lastly, WTF did all the "small govt" and "don't trust the feds" Republicans go? Did they just cash in their moral relativism to be part of the ruling junta for 8 years?

I think they disappeared sometime in the 1990's.

I'd love to hear one of the CFC OT Reps comment on this.

Would you really? Don't you know how it will go already?
 
In this context, not too much.

He can direct the federal lawyers to argue against H.C, but he cannot declare the changes. That's been set by legal precedent, and would take a law by Congress or a change in precedent (not easy to do).

-- Ravensfire

Tell that to Jose Padilla.

And by the way Shane, you might take heart in the comments in this thread on one of the more gun-nut-ish forums on the web:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=249304
 
Gonzales is indeed off his rocker on this, but I'd also point out that I don't give a rat's backside what went on in old time England. It's the Constitution that matters, Spectre boy, not ol' Longshanks.

Its times like this that we can all see the real limitations of a radical, textualist interpratation of the Constitution.
 
Its times like this that we can all see the real limitations of a radical, textualist interpratation of the Constitution.

You'd have to be illiterate to interpret the text the way the AG has, though.

Senator Specter's comment to Gonzalez was that he was defying common sense. I'll try and find the exact quote, it made me smile.

Edit: got this from IglooDude's link:
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.
 
You'd have to be illiterate to interpret the text the way the AG has, though.

Senator Specter's comment to Gonzalez was that he was defying common sense. I'll try and find the exact quote, it made me smile.

'You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General."
 
By the AG's interpretation, there is also no constitutional right of free speech, press, or exercise of religion. Because it doesn't say it's a right.

Right?
 
Top Bottom