Alberto Gonzales & His Gigantic Balls

Condi Rice also wasn’t exactly a Bush lackey her entire career. She was a respected Soviet analyst (speaks fluent Russian, etc) until, well, there wasn’t a Soviet Union any more, eventually ending up in Bush I’s NSC before running it for Bush II.

I miss Bill Hicks. :(

The better question, which was the point of my previous posts, was if this is a good use of the new Congress’s resources, not if it was just an OK idea. That said, I don’t know that someone can be impeached for having an opinion, notwithstanding how repugnant and ignorant that opinion is. Does interpreting the Constitution in light of, well no light at all, constitute “treason, bribery, or high crimes?”

It just was granted in the bit he quoted unless you decide that logic no longer applies in this universe.

I guess Gonzales stopped reading at Article I.

No, it wasn’t expressly granted. Your conclusory and insulting statement does not change that, but you should perhaps be embarassed at insulting others for “logic” based on what you just wrote.

Seems like prima facie evidence that he’s not qualified to be AG.

Based on what? That he actually has the ability to read and analyze text? I’d suggest that those who were too stupid to ask him whether he believes the Constitution adopts by implication the common law right to habeus corpus are the “lawmakers” who should be embarassed.

Perhaps they could have followed it by asking what scope is attached to habeus corpus in Gonzales’s mind. Does it apply to every person in the world? Every circumstance? Does suspension also prohibit lesser modification or changing of the right?

You know, the sort of questions that would actually be asked by an attorney or someone familiar with the interpretation of laws.

“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 that word ‘Invasion’? That’s the justification for suspending habeus - 9/11 and terrorism is being considered as an invasion, and they are arguing that the ‘public Safety’ requires it.

Not that I agree with them at all, mind you.

That’s not at all what Gonzales said, though:

“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.”

He’s not saying that it’s OK to suspend habeas because 9/11 counts as an invasion. He’s saying that some citizens and individuals are not assured or granted the right in the first place.

What he believes is irrelevant. The Constitution does not grant rights and liberties to the people. The Constitution grants powers to the government. The government is the entity that is constrained to use only powers that are specifically enumerated, not the people. The people are assumed to have all rights and powers not specifically denied them under the authority granted by the Constitution, and certain rights that are specifically secured by the Constitution can never be denied them at all. Then they added the Ninth Amendment, just in case anyone was still unclear on the concept.

Article I clearly states the conditions under which Habeas Corpus can be suspended. Whether or not people have the right to it in the first place is not even up for discussion. They do. You don’t have to be a legal scholar to understand this principle. This is Citizenship 101.

Perhaps they could have followed it by asking what scope is attached to habeus corpus in Gonzales’s mind. Does it apply to every person in the world? Every circumstance? Does suspension also prohibit lesser modification or changing of the right?

Name one way–specifically–in which Habeas Corpus could be “modified or changed” in a manner that doesn’t involve denying someone the right to it.

The other question (“Does it apply to every person in the world?”) may be tricky in a legal precedence sense, and I know that the Bush administration has put this concept under a lot of fire lately, but I think the answer to that one is also crystal clear. To answer, I’d go back to the first point, which is that the core, first principle of our Constitution is that liberty is not something that is granted to the people by the Constitution. It is something that everyone has by virtue of being human beings. This is how we justified our revolution against British rule–the “self-evident” truth that people can justly resist an unjust government. And yes, I know that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, but I think you’d have a hard time arguing that our government is not acting unjustly when it starts saying that only citizens have a right to fundamental liberties, because we overthrew British rule for the exact same reason.

The bill of rights was considered a bad idea by some people because it expressly declared rights, as opposed to the idea that all rights were allowed if not expressly forbidden by the constitution.

This is a known issue.

No, what you believe is irrelvant. What someone with power and authority believes is very relevant.

Yeah, you lost me right there.

The fact that you stated this in a conclusory way so as to forestall any reasoned discussion of it does not somehow make it true.

As a very liberal professor of mine once said to his class of mewling kids, “Scalia is wrong. He is wrong about nearly everything he says. Don’t confuse that with your being smarter than he is, being a better writer than he is, or understanding any issue better than he does.”

Slyfrog, go back and read Ben’s post again. Slowly this time.

It’s not relevant to whether or not he is right.

Yeah, you lost me right there.

The fact that you stated this in a conclusory way so as to forestall any reasoned discussion of it does not somehow make it true.

So what’s your reasoned argument? Do you have one, other than “Nuh-UH,” or are you just being contentious for the hell of it?

SlyFrog just likes to say “conclusory”. When he says “conclusory” he means that you are wrong because you don’t say that you might be wrong.

He mostly does it to enturbulate other posters.

I find his tone to be somewhat… negative.

Gee shadarr, didn’t realize you were an active or former scientologist!

Ben, you’re arguing Locke with a guy who thinks that saying "