billvon 3,132 #1 January 18, 2007 From today: ---------------- 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? Gonzales: 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. ------------------ Let's translate that to a different part of the constitution: ---------------- Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't infringe that right. Doesn't that mean you have the right to bear arms? Gonzales: 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 to bear arms. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. ------------------ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #2 January 18, 2007 QuoteFrom today: ---------------- 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? Gonzales: 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. ------------------ Let's translate that to a different part of the constitution: ---------------- Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't infringe that right. Doesn't that mean you have the right to bear arms? Gonzales: 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 to bear arms. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. ------------------ Isn't it time to change the name of his department to "The Ministry of Truth"?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #3 January 18, 2007 Ah... so the constitution doesn't name whether or not certain rights exist -- only that IF they exist, they shall not be infringed. For some reason I thought the Constitution was more significant than that. I'm constantly reminded how nice it is to live somewhere else. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #4 January 18, 2007 That guy is a Nazi piece of shit. I can PA him, right? -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #5 January 18, 2007 >I can PA him, right? I'm pretty sure he doesn't post on DZ.com so knock yourself out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #6 January 18, 2007 So, Gonzales is saying, "the right to habeus corpus shall not be suspended, but if you never HAD the right to habeus corpus in the first place, then obviously we can't suspend it." He's saying that the whole habeus thing is like infringing upon the right of a 10 year-old to vote - you can't infringe on a ten year-old's right to vote because he never HAD that right. From a purely semantic point, he's right. I use the argument all the time. In a present case, I've had a particularly nasty attorney on the other side telling me how rotten she thinks my clients are. She's said, "But they haven't paid rent!" I reply, "Tell me how that is a breach of an obligation, and I will entertain that accusation." My clients had no duty under the law to do a damned thing! Still, I find it ridiculous to suggest that some people (i.e., detainees) don't have the right to habeus corpus. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #7 January 18, 2007 Based on my experience, I tend to analyze legal issues dispassionately, without unnecessary hyperbole. My professional analysis is this: Zipp0 is right. He's a Nazi piece of shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #8 January 18, 2007 Quote>I can PA him, right? I'm pretty sure he doesn't post on DZ.com so knock yourself out. Does that mean that if I change my username to Bill_Clinton people will finally have to stop with the blowjob stuff?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #9 January 18, 2007 I read another article in which he said that he thinks federal judges should defer to the President and Congress on rulings regarding national security because appointed officials are clearly inferior to elected officials on such issues. I saw no corresponding mention of the fact that politicians are clearly inferior to judges regarding matters of law. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 January 18, 2007 Quotehe said that he thinks federal judges should defer to the President and Congress on rulings regarding national security because appointed officials are clearly inferior to elected officials on such issues. Oh, yeah. I missed that irony - Gonzales is an appointed official. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #11 January 19, 2007 So much for Al Gore's "living, breathing document", huh? From a strictly legal standpoint (because I honestly don't know): DOES habeus corpus apply to non-US citizens? I've seen some of the arguments back and forth and it's still not clear to me from a legal standpoint.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #12 January 19, 2007 QuoteAh... so the constitution doesn't name whether or not certain rights exist -- only that IF they exist, they shall not be infringed. For some reason I thought the Constitution was more significant than that. I'm constantly reminded how nice it is to live somewhere else. And what is written and what is practiced are usually remote, so the writings mean little to nothing when they have no teeth in regard to protections. What is really sad is that essentially counties are responsible for executing people. Makes you understand about Texas and Florida execution numbers, as they have counties with a few thousand people and that can happen. The fed gov puts the case on ignore mode and lets the governor, blindfolded, sign the death warrant, which means it's the county really ordering the execution. QuoteI'm constantly reminded how nice it is to live somewhere else. Quit bragging Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #13 January 19, 2007 QuoteThat guy is a Nazi piece of shit. I can PA him, right? Apponted by the other Nazi POS.... I hope GW Bush doesn't post here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #14 January 19, 2007 QuoteQuote>I can PA him, right? I'm pretty sure he doesn't post on DZ.com so knock yourself out. Does that mean that if I change my username to Bill_Clinton people will finally have to stop with the blowjob stuff? Yes, and posters named, Monica Lewinski will then be compelled to cyber-blow you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #15 January 19, 2007 QuoteI read another article in which he said that he thinks federal judges should defer to the President and Congress on rulings regarding national security because appointed officials are clearly inferior to elected officials on such issues. I saw no corresponding mention of the fact that politicians are clearly inferior to judges regarding matters of law. Blues, Dave Yea, they used to call that the seperation of powers.... until the country became a Nazi'd up POS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #16 January 19, 2007 QuoteFrom a strictly legal standpoint (because I honestly don't know): DOES habeus corpus apply to non-US citizens? I've seen some of the arguments back and forth and it's still not clear to me from a legal standpoint. Yes. The habeus corpus provisions in the Constitution and federal law are silent as to citizenship, which means they apply (and/or have exceptions) without regard to the detained prisoner's citizenship. The U.S. Constitution, at Article I, Section 9, Clause 2. This clause provides, "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." In 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 (ch. 20, § 14, 1 Stat. 73 [codified in title 28 of the U.S.C.A.]), which granted to federal courts the power to hear the habeas corpus petitions of federal prisoners. In 1867, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act of February 5 (ch. 28, 14 Stat. 385 [28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 et seq.]). This act gave federal courts the power to issue habeas corpus writs for "any person … restrained in violation of the Constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this statute to mean that federal courts may hear the habeas corpus petitions of state prisoners as well as federal prisoners. The phrase "any person" is silent, and thus neutral, as to citizenship. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #17 January 19, 2007 I appreciate the info...thank you!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #18 January 19, 2007 QuoteSo much for Al Gore's "living, breathing document", huh? From a strictly legal standpoint (because I honestly don't know): DOES habeus corpus apply to non-US citizens? I've seen some of the arguments back and forth and it's still not clear to me from a legal standpoint. Amendment XIV All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Seems clear to me.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #19 January 19, 2007 QuoteAh... so the constitution doesn't name whether or not certain rights exist -- only that IF they exist, they shall not be infringed. For some reason I thought the Constitution was more significant than that. Actually, the US Constitution is a lot more significant than that. You'd have more of a point if Reichsmarshall Gonzales was correct about the US Constitution; but he's just plain wrong. I'm quite sure that the vast, vast, vast majority of lawyers and judges in the US -- when they're being intellectually honest -- would agree that whenever the Constitution says "the right to XYZ shall not be infringed...etc.", it is first and foremost an express acknowledgment of the axiom that "the right to XYZ" exists. Bush Administration lawyers like Gonzales are an embarrassment to the profession. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #20 January 19, 2007 QuoteBush Administration lawyers like Gonzales are an embarrassment to the profession. Or more likely the harbingers of the new profession. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #21 January 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteBush Administration lawyers like Gonzales are an embarrassment to the profession. Or more likely the harbingers of the new profession. No. We won't let it happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)