FOLLOW UP TO Attorney General Gonzales claim that we have no right of habeas corpus.
What is really fascinating about the Attorney General Gonzales position is the revealing look that it gives into his mind set. There is no specific "grant" of habeas corpus in the constitution, because inalienable rights are not given to us by government. Our founding fathers did not believe government "grants" rights. Instead, they knew that our inalienable rights are given to us by our Creator. Our founding fathers enumerated rights in our constitution, because they wanted government to PROTECT those inalienable rights, that are given to us by our Creator.
The Gonzales opinion is a demonstration of the totalitarian worldview of the evil men who currently infest the White House: Gonzales is saying that unless the Constitution explicitly grants all citizens a right, these rights can be taken away by the President. Thus, there is no right to freedom of speech, religion or assembly because there is, to use the Gonzales language: The constitution does not say that every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby "granted" or assured the right to free speech. After all, the Constitution's First Amendment simply says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." It doesn't grant a right; all it says is that congress can't abridge it. So in the view of Gonzales, that leaves the President and the courts free to do whatever they want in taking away those our rights.
These evil men need to be impeached. THEN after that, we should perform a fumigation and an exorcism at the White House.
Why are we not surprised that our Attorney General Gonzales dares to attempt to usurp such a sacred constitutional right as habeas corpus?
The constitution has been trampled to death. Do we still remember the words "Congress shall pass no law..."?
How about the words "...shall not be infringed"?
What part of "...shall not be infringed" do they not understand?
How about "reasonable" searches that do not require a search warrant?
How about the "accused will enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial"?
Do we remember when we all knew the constitution prevented the taking of private land to be given to a developer?
Our government has made a joke out of the constitution.
If you think any branch of the federal government feels restricted in any way by the constitution, think again. They only pull it out and pretend it's still in effect to accuse the their opposition of violating it.
It is CHILLING that the Attorney General is the top lawyer of the land. YET, he shouldn't even be a US citizen. He is a the descendant of illegal aliens. Being an "anchor baby", he benefited from the wrongful interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Now he feels he is free to wrongfully interpret the habeas corpus clause.
Visit: Google Search "anchor baby" "Attorney General Gonzales"
The impeachment of a non-citizen enemy of our constitution should be a "given".
The oath of office; to which Alberto Gonzales swore, was:
"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC..."
Alberto Gonzales has violated his oath of office.Alberto Gonzales should not only be impeached for his willfully obtuse interpretations of the Constitution, and the violation of his oath of office, he should be disbarred.
Gonzales is at the center of Bush's crimes, including authorizing torture and illegal wiretapping. Is it any wonder that Gonzales allowed the imprisonment of border agents Ramos and Compean? Gonzales is acts as an agent for Mexican illegal aliens.
Follow up articles:
H.R. 698 to eliminate anchor baby citizenship H.R. 698 is a bill to deny citizenship to U.S.-born babies of illegal aliens
A Bold Remedy to a Grave Threat
Attorney General Gonzales claims there is no right of habeas corpus.
We need a NEW ATTORNEY GENERA
LWATCH THE ACTUAL VIDEO HERE:
Yesterday, (Jan. 18, 2007) during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Attorne y General Alberto Gonzales claimed there is no express right to habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution. Gonzales was debating Sen. Arle n Specter (R-PA) about whether the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanam o detainees last year cited the constitutional right to habeas corpus . Gonzales claimed the Court did not cite such a right, th en 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 tread ing on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Atto rney General."
As McJoan noted, the right of habeas corpus is clear in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution: "The Privilege of the Writ o f Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
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 tha t 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 expres s constitutional provision that it can't be suspended, and an explici t 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 t o 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 Constitutio n, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about J ohn Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedde d 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 deal t 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 te e 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 the re 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 suspend ed except by
SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.