Guns are next.

It's not clear that he's wrong here. The Constitution guarantees that the writ of habeas corpus will not be suspended, but it does define what the scope of that right is. Essentially, the Constitution does not discuss what the substance of the right under the writ of habeas corpus is.

Since the writ was established before the Founding, the Constitution should probably be interpreted to extend the writ to everyone to whom the writ was extended at the time. If it was extended to all citizens, than the Constitution protects that, if it wasn't then the Constitution only protects that writ to the extent that it existed in 1787. I'm not an expert on 18th Century habeas law, so I can't say for sure if he's right, but it's probably a plausible interpretation.

Besides, Lincoln suspended it and Kos would have fellated him.

He was a uniter, not a divider, you know.

I am ready to storm D.C.!

/and by storm I mean sit at home and do nothing
//seriously Mr. SS, hey wwait...what I have rights

KiwDaWabbit: Besides, Lincoln suspended it and Kos would have fellated him.

So I guess the Civil War wasn't a rebellion or invasion that threatened the public safety.

Oh, and Lincoln didn't do any other good things. Nope.

KiwDaWabbit

yes, Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus but there was an insurrection going on at the time

Paging the Weaver95!!!

Our insurrection was their fight for freedom!!

Haha, wow. I must have touched a nerve.

Action Replay Nick: Please come back, John Ashcroft.

That Edwin Meese wannabe?

I don't know.

/the current AG doesn't appear to be a fundie...he has that going for him

KiwDaWabbit: Besides, Lincoln suspended it and Kos would have fellated him.

"unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Bulgaroktonos: It's not clear that he's wrong here. The Constitution guarantees that the writ of habeas corpus will not be suspended, but it does define what the scope of that right is.

It's not clear that he's wrong here. The Constitution guarantees that Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech, but it does not define what the scope of that right is. See the problem there?

Besides, it need not be defined, as it has been an integral part of the Common Law for centuries before the Constitution was written.

Have we learned yet that these people don't give a fark about The United States?

Have we? You have vandals pillaging America. They'll leave you a sacked country to rebuild.

Most of the Constitution and Bill of Rights expresses what government CAN'T DO, as opposed to what is guarranteed to the people, so according to this douche bag's reasoning, we the people have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER under the Constitution.

Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?

They'll leave you a sacked country to rebuild.

But the question is who gets to do the "Lights Out" dance and who will get upset when said person(s) do said dance?

Hey libtards:

He is following exactly what the constitution says. He isn't suspending habeas corpus, he's revoking it. You libs can be so dense sometimes.

(not serious)

DrJesusPhD,

The First Amendment analogy is very apt. The Constitution doesn't tell us what "Freedom of Speech" means, and guess what, we've decided it doesn't mean an absolute right. We have courts to decide what the scope of these unclear rights is. It would be completely right for me to say "The Constitution does not gaurantee all citizens the freedom of speech in all cases." Are you trying to suggest otherwise?

The writ of habeas corpus is no different, except that given the centuries of common law, we have a little more to go on. I don't know the common law, maybe he's right and there were limitations on the writ of habeas corpus, maybe he's wrong, but it's not an obvious issue.

He needs to do some serious time. Suspend his Habeas Corpus for treason.

(serious)

Cyberluddite: Using that logic, the Constitution also says: 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. I guess Gonzales would say "the Constitution doesn't say that every citizen of the U.S. has a right freedom of speech or freedom of religious expression, it just says that Congress can't abridge those rights."

The Constitution says: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Gonzales would say that "the Constitution doesn't say that every citizen of the U.S. has a right to keep and bear arms, it just says that the right to bear arms can't be infringed."

The Constitution says: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . Gonzales would say that "the Constitution doesn't say that citizens have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, it just says the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures can't be violated."

STOP GIVING HIM IDEAS!

that's cause HE'S AN ASSHOLE!!!!!

I have never seen a more partisan Attorney General in my lifetime. But the thing is, at this point, I don't believe the neocons are even believing what they are saying. It almost seems like they are trying to destroy the government from the inside.

They are so loyal to each other, if Bush started raping Grandmothers for the country, the Cons wouldn't need a reason. They would be lining up in droves to be the first one to skullfark your moms mom. They would find a way to defend it. "She was asking for it!" or "Grandmothers need love to." or some other crazy shiat would be the talking point on the O'Reilly factor.

I hate that guy. I really, really hate that guy.

/does Sylvia Brown know when our next civil war is going to be?

I really love this shameless parsing of what the Constitution says about Habeus Corpus.

And by the very people who would have had an apoplectic fit if the same words came out of Janet Reno's mouth.

Difference is, I would have been apoplectic then, too.

You are shaming your country. Stop it.

So Alberto Gonzales is saying that the Constitution doesn't guarantee that right to citizens because those rights are inherent and need not be guaranteed? What a relief.

It's too bad that line of reasoning is, you know, COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT HE IS DEFENDING.

What's sad is he's supposed to be a conservative. Y'know, conserving the intent and meaning of the Constitution? Bleagh.

I never thought someone could actually make John Ashcroft look like a bastion of reason.

Skleenar

gilgigamesh: I submit to you that a guarantee with conditions is not a guarantee.

A guarantee with conditions is not an unconditional guarantee.

It is still, however, a guarantee.

I can give you a guarantee on a steak by sticking's my head up a cow's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it.

Confused here:

GZ:
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.

Constitution:
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.

Please tell me farkers are smarter than this.

$10 to the first person who figures out how this koz kid disproved their own mock outrage.

skipjack: GZ:
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.

This is what I was talking about upthread.

Stop it. You are embarrassing yourself and your country.
And while you're thinking about why I might respond that way, take a gander at the 9th amendment. See if you can figure out its significance.

Void Where Prohibited

yes, Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus but there was an insurrection going on at the time

In the real world, suspension of Habeas Corpus is a power reserved for the Legislative Branch, not the Executive.

In the Gonzales world it's ok for the Executive Branch to suspend Habeas Corpus because the Constitution only says that Congress can't except in cases of insurrection or rebellion.

That is contradicted by Ex Parte Merryman and several other SCOTUS rulings that say suspension of Habeas Corpus is a power reserved to Congress.


People keep throwing up Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus as backing up it being ok but he was rightfully found to be in the wrong.

$10 to the first person who figures out how this koz kid disproved their own mock outrage.

Yes, the Constitution was only saying that some things can't be suspended after the government deigns to grant someone that thing (at their discretion).

GG fascist.

And of course, he's correct.

There is no distinctive guarantee that citizens will be free of government interference. There is no clear cut statute that supports this. If Congress were willing to ratify a process much like they did the 14th Amendment, there could indeed be a legal definition of habeas corpus.

At any rate, this will prove a victory in processing domestic terror suspects, because the Constitutional red tape has finally been cut to provide to expedite needed processes, and we need this more than ever to fight the War on Terror.

Gonzales should be summarily executed. Since he doesn't seem to think that the constitution applies I think that maybe the due process of law part doesn't apply to him.

And if someone won't give him a bullet induced brain hemorrhage congress should at least impeach his ass.

Skleenar

Stop it. You are embarrassing yourself and your country.
And while you're thinking about why I might respond that way, take a gander at the 9th amendment. See if you can figure out its significance.

I'm glad you brought up the 9th amendment. Perhaps you should read section 9....of that same document. When you've done so, please show just WHO does not qualify for habeas corpus.

Thanks in advance.

RagingHamster

Yes, the Constitution was only saying that some things can't be suspended after the government deigns to grant someone that thing (at their discretion).

GG fascist.

Huh...i've never considered George Washington as a fascist.

Fark It
You're not using "public Safety" to justify the AG's position are you? It's clear to anyone with an 8th grade civic's education that the suspension of Habeas Corpus in the name of public safety is only allowed in cases of rebellion or invasion. Hell, even in cases of invasion or rebellion it says the writ "may" be suspended, not must or will.

*checks window

Nope, I don't see roving bands of jihadis trying to force my neigbors to submit to Allah or be enslaved.

For retards:

Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion or invasion. Then it can be suspended if public Safety requires it.

I'm using the constitution to say that the AG's position is correct.

Lincoln's suspension was also ruled unconstitutional in Ex Parte Merryman (which was ignored) and Ex Parte Milligan.

Go Go Chinchilla!: in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Don't I remember Bush signing something that lets him commit US troops on American soil? If this is interpreted in light of that signing once he makes his bid for Emperor of America and declares a national security emergency we will have no rights whatsoever in his police state.

Abagadro

He got a do-over in Ex Parte Mulligan however.

/sorry.

Phil Moskowitz: He got a do-over in Ex Parte Mulligan however.

Seedy Gonzales needs to be gutted, and his guts fed as chum off the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Then, at least, this beaner might be of some use to the American public.

I'd just like to point out that Lincoln thought his own suspension of habeas corpus was possibly unconstitutional before he did it, but Congress was out of session at the time and he didn't think that he could wait for them to reconvene(which would take a couple of months). Since convening Congress in an emergency these days would take a matter of hours, I don't think the same situation applies.

CaptainFatass
Seedy Gonzales needs to be gutted, and his guts fed as chum off the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Then, at least, this beaner might be of some use to the American public.

Of USE to. So perhaps a chemically induced coma and subsequent organ harvesting. The, burn his body for fuel. THAT would be useful. But I like where you're going with that, as a backup plan.

Who the fark gave this jackass a law degree. Someone needs to check his references.