Gonzales - Habeas Corpus NOT a right!

If you’re a regular THF reader or THF-head (pronounced thiff-hed), you’ve probably noticed that most of the time normally devoted to blogging around here has been, of late, spent on the Libby trial. It’s become my job to essentially read and review all blogs I can find on the subject, big and small, in order to keep up momentum on the “Libby: Leftly Leaning” series. Now that the feed is being covered by the Associated Press [1], the pressure is that much greater to keep it steady and pertinent.

All this is a rambling way of apologizing for missing one of the most horrific statements [2] to ever dribble from the lips of a sitting Attorney General:

Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.

“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.

Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.

“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “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 continued, “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.

During the exchange, Specter suggests Gonzales “may be treading on [his] interdiction of violating common sense.” To me, the more important question is how this man has managed to finish law school, pass the bar, work in a high-profile practice, and ascend to the highest legal role in the country without having even a shred of common sense when it comes to constitutional law [3]. To be perfectly blunt, I’m not exactly clear on how this sycophant goes to work every day without wearing his underwear on the outside of his pants.

Comments

Ken (not verified)Fri, 2007-02-16 19:19

Gonzalez ain't alone...

Remember Kelo? There have been progressive lawyers who have argued that although the Constitution talks about Eminent Domain only being legit for "public use" and "just compensation", that the Constitution doesn't say anything about "non-public use" and "unjust compensation", implying that it's okay to steal property for any other reason. I agree though, it does make you wonder how in the world these folks managed to pass the bar. And there-in lies your greatest legal problem today: people reading things into the Constitution that don't exist.

Methusala (not verified)Tue, 2007-01-30 00:17

Re: Gonzales - Habeas Corpus NOT a right!

What a tool! Seriously, by this logic Americans aren't entitled to any of the rights in the bill of rights since they only say that congress cant prohibit them. btw - i'm a HUGE thiff-head, keep up the good work!