« A Showdown at the GSA | Blog Index | Lawsuit Against Corcpork, Inc.'s Animal Cruelty Revived »


recent entries How Do You Keep Veterans Out of Jail? John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace" What Heat Waves Tell Us McCain Aides Screening Reporters? The Campaign Replies McCain Scores New Support Among Hispanics NYT Plays Fact-Checker Denver's Black National Anthem Mistake A Great Observation About Washington from (Duh) Henry Waxman Diplomacy at Its Finest

Gonzales Argues Against Certainty of the Right Of Habeas Corpus

Very strict constructionism, in the form of creating backwards syllogisms and thereby violating the spirit of the Constitution, has been a hallmark of the Bush administration conservatives. The latest is this gem from U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: "There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away."

Gonzales uttered these words yesterday during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Committee chairman Arlen Specter then asked the Attorney General: "The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Gonzales: “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” (except in cases of rebellion or invasion).

Robert Parry, writing for Consortiumnews.com, asks a logical question: If Americans do not possess the right of habeas corpus because that right is presented via its negative, then what about other rights that are presented the same way? He uses the First Amendment as an example.

Perry also goes on to cite the Sixth Amendment, which presents habeas corpus as a right in a positive syntax, thereby nullifying Gonzales's strange logic.

(Thanks to Project for the OLD American Century for this lead, and POAC, by the way, could use some help.)

Comments

His name is Robert Parry not Perry.

Posted by: Seamhead on 01/19/07 at 8:03 PM

Yes--typo. Fixed.

Posted by: Diane on 01/19/07 at 8:17 PM

That pesky Constitution just has to be done away with, apparently. How disheartening. That being said, is Gonzales going to be reviled for this, or celebrated by the rightwing base? I think support for this administration is beyond dwindling so perhaps this was yet another bad political move.

Posted by: HelenWheels on 01/20/07 at 7:47 AM

Our attorney General would flunk constitutional law at any C rated law school. He aught to be ashamed of himself. Its pathetic that he would stoop so low as to clearly shred the constitution.

Posted by: dan lindsey on 01/20/07 at 9:40 PM

As a military officer, I think Gonzalez's remarks are extremely disturbing--frightening, in fact. His comments are unquestionably hostile to the Constitution. I have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC, and I must admit, I wonder where this leaves me.

Why is no one paying attention to this? Taken together with reports that they are quietly replacing federal prosecutors under a provision of the PATRIOT act, one could be forgiven for thinking that something grim is in the works.

They wouldn't use the next terrorist attack as an excuse to completely suspend the Constitution--would they?

Posted by: Christian on 01/23/07 at 2:36 AM

Christian, that is the plan! If we give the Fascist/Nazi Oligarchy serious trouble, they will hit us with a pandemic and move from Quasi military rule to out right military rule and enforce it with corporate, CIA paramilitary and U.S. military personnel. That leaves you in the same boat as me. We must choose between upholding our oath to uphold the Constitution against domistic enemies. I had hoped to WAKE UP AMERICA before it ever came to this!As Aristotle said "ALL GOVERNMENTS are inherently EVIL by there very nature", therefore, they MUST BE CONTROLLED!

Posted by: Ranselar VanDerpoel on 01/23/07 at 9:40 AM

Alberto Gonzales may already be violating the 4th amendment to violate the 1st amendment.

I was writing to expose the US government's betrayal of its South Capitol Mall.

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/

And I got ambushed by 20+ black suited police in 2006.

http://wwwfreespeechbeneathushs.blogspot.com/2006/10/south-capitol-mall-blogger-ambushed.html
http://wwwfreespeechbeneathushs.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-i-was-writing-about.html
http://wwwfreespeechbeneathushs.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_wwwfreespeechbeneathushs_archive.html

Posted by: Douglas Willinger on 01/25/07 at 12:14 PM