Shall not be suspended

01/26/07

Permalink 01:00:27 pm, by Roulette Email , 402 words, 71 views   English (US)
Categories: Political BS

Shall not be suspended

There are a lot of reasons people talk smack about the Bush administration. Some of them justified, others are just frustration.

Alberto Gonzales is one of the former. He honestly sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee and said that the constitution doesn't specifically grant habeas corpus to US citizens. It just forbids Congress from removing it.

Maybe it's just semantics but if you forbid Congress from taking it away from the citizens, it seems clear to me that it's something the citizens must have. You don't forbid someone from taking away something that you don't have. It's just that simple. Habeas Corpus was common law in the 13th century for fucks sake! Medieval fucking people had it. It was fucking assumed by the fucking 1700's!!!

Even if you try to do the linguistic limbo with this and act as if it's not protected, you're really not thinking about what you're implying. Becuase if that's the viewpoint you take on the constituion, you're going to lose a LOT more that just the right to question the legality of your imprisonment. Oh yeah.

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.

See how that's written as a limit on congressional power? It's written that way for a reason. It's better to say what Congress can't do, than to try to enumerate what it CAN do. Thus, the Bill of rights.

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.

Take a look at that from that perspective. Turns out, we don't have a right to free speech. Congress doesn't have to take it away because we don't HAVE it. Sounds stupid when you hold up the Holy First Amendment to it, doesn't it?

I swear fucking Gonzales makes Ashcroft look good and I thought that cockstain was horrible. Did Alberto not get to the 9th amendment in college? Played hookie when they discussed the scope and limit of congressional power? Miss a few days in Law school where they explained about the Constitution and how THE FUCK IT WORKS???

You're a piece of shit. Die screaming, right next to Jen.

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Dunsinane [Visitor]
While I fully agree with the vent, you slip off target in your argument about halfway through.

The Constitution's primary, number one, absolute responsibility is defining the powers and responsibilities of government. To this point, Article I, sec. 8 gives us the enumerated powers of government.

It's a fairly brief list by any standard and focuses on three areas: dealing with foreign governments (the war power), dealing with the internal mechanics of government (collecting duties and taxes, establishing tribunals under the supreme court), and dealing with a lean, mean economic machine (they'll even clear the pirates out for you).

Not much there dealing with citizen's speech or religion or the carrying of firearms, is there? Nope. But those founding father's were nobody's fools. They knew quite well that there were power-hungry sorts out there and that the efforts they'd put into guaranteeing individual liberties could be... corrupted by those who either had base motives in mind or were simply panicked idiots during a crisis. So we get further limitations on Congressional power - even addressing things the Congress would really have stretched to touch to begin with. The Bill of Rights. No titles of nobility. No ex post facto. No writ of habeas corpus.

That said, our beloved Atty. General's argument also fails on the surface, anyway. The Constitution doesn't grant rights. It never has. Rights are assumed in the very first sentence, when it is made clear that it is the people who create this government, not the government that lords it over the people, and further driven home by the enumeration of powers and the supporting claims of the 9th and 10th amendments.
PermalinkPermalink 01/26/07 @ 13:27
Comment from: Dunsinane [Visitor]
Just noticed I accidentally edited out an important paragraph, and I don't see an edit button for myself, so...

2nd to last paragraph:

It's the interaction between what the Congress is given the authority to do and what is specifically banned by the Constitution that defines the power our government has. You can't eliminate either aspect of it without seriously expanding the powers of government into areas none of us would like to see.
PermalinkPermalink 01/26/07 @ 13:32
Comment from: Abba Zabba [Member] Email
I'm fairly sure this is the legal doctrine "the exception that proves the rule". The fact that there's an exception to habeus corpus (Congress can take it away in certain circumstances) proves that, the rest of the time, we have habeus corpus.
PermalinkPermalink 01/26/07 @ 16:28

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))

Rou

May 2008
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
 << <   > >>
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Search

Categories

Misc

XML Feeds

What is RSS?

Who's Online?

  • Guest Users: 13

powered by b2evolution free blog software