From today's Washington Post:
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has raised some eyebrows in legal circles because of the following exchange last Thursday with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) at a meeting of the Judiciary Committee over the writ of habeas corpus. The Latin term, roughly interpreted as "you have the body," refers to the centuries-old right of prisoners to challenge their confinement.
Gonzales : The fact that the Constitution -- again, there is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away.
But it's never been the case. I'm not aware of a Supreme...
Specter : Wait a minute. Wait a minute. 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 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. Doesn't say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except . . .
Specter : You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.
This entire discussion is predicated on the belief that the Constitution is anything more than a dead letter.
ReplyDeleteMssrs. Gonzales and Specter are vultures picking over a long-dead carcass.
Yes, but this is how everyone gets to see that the Constitution has no effect, if it ever had.
ReplyDeleteHey, Lincoln did it. Isn't that enough authority for you sticklers? :)
ReplyDelete"Yes, but this is how everyone gets to see that the Constitution has no effect, if it ever had."
ReplyDeleteDefine "everyone."
Define "no effect."
I would counter that a vanishingly small minority actually "sees." The remainder like it the way it is (seeing or not), or are either completely apathetic or too busy slaving away to pay the opportunity costs of caring.
And as regards the remainder that like it the way it is, it should be remembered that the U.S. Constitution was crafted to achieve the very ends we observe today -- the establishment of the perfect merchant state (viz. Charles Beard).
Invoking Constitutional arguments is "buying the premise," as Sheldon has written in the past. It's a losing strategy.
James, what do you mean when you say "..the U.S. Constitution was crafted to achieve the very ends we observe today -- the establishment of the perfect merchant state (viz. Charles Beard)"?
ReplyDeleteSorry for my ignorance.
Two good reads on how States come into being and why:
ReplyDeleteCharles Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Beard
Franz Oppenheimer, The State
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer
One can also get a good education by reading Albert Jay Nock, who develops similar themes.
I hope this helps.
I would also recommend two books by Merrill Jensen: "The Articles of Confederation" and "The New Nation." They provide an excellent account of the time leading up to the drafting of the Constitution. The issue was not Federalists vs. Anti-federalists, but true federalists versus nationalists. Some traditional heroes (Madison) are the villains of this story.
ReplyDelete