home
The Gonzo Constitution | 54 comments (54 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

the thing... (none / 0) (#47)
by Gabriel Malor on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 08:15:12 PM EST
scarshapedstar writes:

He is effectively saying that because the Constitution doesn't specifically state exactly who gets the right of habeas (I guess "We the People" wasn't clear enough?) then technically they couldn't even suspend it if they tried.

I'm not sure about the second part of this sentence, but I'm certain that the first part is the root of our disagreement. Some people see that the Constitution doesn't answer the who or when of habeas corpus and just assume it applies to everyone and everywhen. Others looked to the common law to determine to whom it was applied and in what circumstances. And still others decided it was so important that they codified it as a statute. Two hundred years passed and now, because of the War on Terror, we're having to decide which  interpretation is the best.

Incidentally, I don't think the "We the People" was clear enough. After all, at the time those words were written "We" didn't include blacks or Native Americans. It also was less inclusive for women.

[ Parent ]

One need only look to (none / 0) (#48)
by scarshapedstar on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 08:33:26 PM EST
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Seeing as Abu's argument boils down to expressio unius est exclusio alterius taken to such an extreme that the right of habeas can be reasonably assumed never to apply to anyone.

[ Parent ]

And here's why I make this association (none / 0) (#49)
by scarshapedstar on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 09:05:55 PM EST
If the Constitution stated instead,

The privilege of the people to the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

or better yet

The privilege of the accused to the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

then this argument would pretty much fall on its face, despite the general meaninglessness of the first variation (consider the debate over the right of "the people" to bear arms) and the implied presence of the second, since the government would only be imprisoning a citizen if it were accusing them of something.

...or is that the whole point? Is Abu Gonzo actually asserting that due process applies only to the accused and not to those who the government simply wants to shut up? This would certainly seem to follow his monumentally perverse "torture is okay as long as we aren't actually trying to get information from it" defense.

Oh no...

[ Parent ]

The Gonzo Constitution | 54 comments (54 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft