[Big Mac]

I'd like to hear opinions on the piece entitled "Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus," specifically regarding not the central question of Gonzales's interpretation of habeas corpus but rather the associated topic raised by the article concerning the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the "Any person. . ." clause contained therein. I'd love to get opinions from fellow conservatives.

[Millennium]

Ridiculous on its face. While what he says about the language of the Constitution is technically correct, I fail to see what twisted logic could possibly make "you can't take away the right to habeas corpus" and "everyone has an inviolable right to habeas corpus" anything other than synonymous.

[nonhuman]

He's apparently operating from the (flawed) perspective that the Constitution grants rights rather than enumerating those that are specifically protected from the government.

[OreoCookie]

I don't think it's a problem of perspective, but rather that Gonzales wants to justify certain actions a posteriori, I'm sure he doesn't care about perspective. As Millenium said, common sense and common lore is that `you can't take away the right to habeas corpus' and `everyone has an inviolable right to habeas corpus' are in fact equivalent.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

He's apparently operating from the (flawed) perspective that the Constitution grants rights rather than enumerating those that are specifically protected from the government.

Possibly, and I agree with your statement about the Constitution protecting existing rights rather than granting them.

However, if you try to look it it from the standpoint of a Constution that grants rights rather than guaranteeing them, to forbid the government from taking away a right, that right first has to be in place. Otherwise, the statement is meaningless; how could the government take away something that doesn't exist in the first place?

Seriously; the logic he's going through has to be impressively contorted here.

[Big Mac]

I agree with many of the points made. However, as I said, I am also interested in debating the aforementioned Military Commissions Act and the implications it holds for the writ. It looks like it could be construed to deny the writ to even American citizens (even though the Constitution does not limit the writ to citizens or even residents of the United States). I wonder if the Roberts Court will forthrightly strike that provision down when it comes up for review. Of course, it may never even come up for review if the writ limited as the administration apparently intends to do.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Possibly, and I agree with your statement about the Constitution protecting existing rights rather than granting them.

However, if you try to look it it from the standpoint of a Constution that grants rights rather than guaranteeing them, to forbid the government from taking away a right, that right first has to be in place. Otherwise, the statement is meaningless; how could the government take away something that doesn't exist in the first place?

Seriously; the logic he's going through has to be impressively contorted here.

Very true. He's just wrong no matter how he spins it.

On the one hand I'm appalled that he was ever made Attorney General. On the other, it gives me hope that one day I too can be a corrupt political appointee to a position that I have no qualifications to hold.

[Krusty]

Amendment 10 of the Constitution (last of the original Bill of Rights) actually says:

"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"

Amendment 9 is even more clear:

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

Gonzales must have just ignored these. It gives a guideline showing that, in fact, the people's rights should be approached in the way several of you have described above and NOT the way Gonzales interprets them (i.e. we possess all possible rights that can exist except where explicitly restricted.)

I know some right-wingers on the board will cry "leftist alarmism" but seriously, Gonzales position is perhaps the most disturbing and most un-American statement I have ever heard. His statement IS the foundation of totalitarian government.

In all seriousness, is there anyone on this board ... even the most far Right of you, that agrees with his position ?

[subego]

As to the Military Comissions Act:

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...habeas-corpus/

[Krusty]

Sorry Big Mac, I see your begging for discussion of Gonzales' statement with regards to the MCA.

My interpretation would be that the MCA is Constitutionally illegal. The rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights and the theory of rights being retained by the people does not, anywhere, limit these rights to those who have US citizenship. If amendment 10 is to be taken seriously, the even non-US citizens retain all rights, including Habeas Corpus, as long as they are within the jurisdiction of the US and none of the restrictive criteria are met.

Enumeration of this specific theory of applicability of rights should be the next Amendment to the Constitution, IMHO. It's that important. If "all men are created equal", what possible interpretation of the constitution could deem non-US citizens as "less equal" than US citizens ? This is exactly, precisely, the question that should be addressed directly, head-on by with an explicit legal interpretation in the form of an amendment.

[Taliesin]

All you need to do is to interpret terrorism as a rebellion and/or invasion and you can ignore habeas corpus.

Taliesin

[HackManDan]

"Rebellion" and "invasion" are very specific terms, and neither can be applied to terrorism.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Krusty 

Amendment 10 of the Constitution (last of the original Bill of Rights) actually says:

"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"

Amendment 9 is even more clear:

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

Gonzales must have just ignored these. It gives a guideline showing that, in fact, the people's rights should be approached in the way several of you have described above and NOT the way Gonzales interprets them (i.e. we possess all possible rights that can exist except where explicitly restricted.)

I know some right-wingers on the board will cry "leftist alarmism" but seriously, Gonzales position is perhaps the most disturbing and most un-American statement I have ever heard. His statement IS the foundation of totalitarian government.

In all seriousness, is there anyone on this board ... even the most far Right of you, that agrees with his position ?

What happened is that the Democrats in the early part of the 20th century reinterpreted those amendments that assign all rights not enumerated to the states and people, were now assigned to the states and people unless there was already a federal statute on the topic, in which case the matter was retained by the feds. It was this that permitted the expansion of power under the New Deal and beyond.

That today, it is Republicans going right along with Democrats on the way to Federal expansion of power is to their shame. As a good beginning, they could go back learn from the Contract with America, and some of what they were able to implement.

Amendment 9 says that there are more rights than mentioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Amendment 10 assigns those rights not specifically ascribed to Congress, to the states and people.

The fact is, nearly everything the government does today is unconstitutional under the system they instituted. Governmental powers were expressly limited; individual liberties were not. Now it seems it is the other way around.