Thread: Gonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The

Your not going to believe this!

Dixie

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/gonzales-habeas/

Gonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution’

Yesterday, during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed there is no express right to habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution. Gonzales was debating Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) about whether the Supreme Court’s ruling on Guantanamo detainees last year cited the constitutional right to habeas corpus. Gonzales claimed the Court did not cite such a right, then added, “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”

Specter pushed back. “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?” Specter told Gonzales, “You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.” Watch it:

View Video

As McJoan noted, the right of habeas corpus is clear in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Contitution: “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.”

Full transcript:

SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there’s an express constitutional provision that it can’t be suspended, and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.

GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you’re referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.

SPECTER: Well, you’re not right about that. It’s plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.

GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn’t mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas.

SPECTER: When did you last read the case?

GONZALES: It has been a while, but I’ll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.

SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.

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.

Yes we are NAU Gonzales, you don't have any right to mess with our states or send the army after any legal American. Of course your planning to.

How in the hell did this guy get a college degree...in law....what a complete idiot....

How can this man be qualified for his position?

Originally Posted by redbadger

How in the hell did this guy get a college degree...in law....what a complete idiot....

I agree.

Well, what the exchange demonstrates is not a lack of knowledge of constitutional law, but rather the fact that Gonzales understands full well that such constitutional guarantees do not apply to federal subjects or non-citizens, as was made clear in the Slaughterhouse cases.

I keep trying to explain to you guys the implicit rights waiver connected to the acceptance of the privilege of federal citizenship, as the franchise agreement in a UCC agreement and therefore requires (under sec. 1-207) a reservation of any rights one wishes to retain. Those who have not made their rights reservations in a specific and timely manner have acquiesced to the implicit waiver and instead have only the privileges and immunities that the federal entity wishes to extend. Have you always been careful to make your reservation of rights? Have you ever made a reservation of rights?

For those who still don't follow what I'm saying, allow me to clarify the nature of the Constitution and its limitations on the federal government. The Constitution is the compact between the People of the several republic states. The Constitution's protections are relative to the relationship between the federal entity and the People and their states. Just as it does not apply to the relationship between the federal entity and foreign governments, neither does it apply to the relationship between the federal entity and itself and its subjects, other than to specify that the federal government has sole authority over the District and its possessions and territories. If you identify as a US citizen rather than as a citizen of your state, you are identifying as that special status created by Amendment XIV, Sec. 1. You are then among those specified in the Slaughterhouse cases as being federal subjects and not accruing the direct protections of the Constitution and the natural rights it protects. since pretty much everyone (and particularly every holder of an SSN) is identified as a federal citizen from birth by one or another agreement, if you are an American reading this you are probably a federal subject. Have you ever noticed that almost any agreement you sign now requires that you affirm that you are a "U.S. resident"? Even contests include that stipulation in the rules. The "U.S." that is being referred to is the federal legislative democracy, as defined in Black's.

Okay, so this was a long explanation, but the point is that you should never dismiss a dangerous person like Alberto Gonzales as being ignorant. What may appear to be a case of misunderstanding of the law on his part is in fact a misapprehension of the way that some minor exceptions allowed in the Constitution have been parlayed into a means of subverting the intent of the Constitution without techincally changing or violating a word of it.

Now, back it's to the subject.

CG and Bamajdphd if you are looking for the post, I put it here.

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=52198

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

Now, back it's to the subject.

CG and Bamajdphd if you are looking for the post, I put it here.

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=52198

Dixie

Thank you!

Originally Posted by Dixie

Now, back it's to the subject.

CG and Bamajdphd if you are looking for the post, I put it here.

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=52198

Dixie

Thanks.

Y'all are welcome.

I'm a mess... Now it's back to the subject.

Dixie