Suspending Habeas Corpus Would Require A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT - Rec!

[Dems Will Win]

It would be unconstitutional to suspend habeas corpus for the War on Terror. The GOP would have to pass a constitutional amendment!

This bill is show for the election.

Here is Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution:

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.

CALL YOUR SENATOR AND CALL SNOW AND COLLINS! THE WAR ON TERROR IS A POLICE ACTION AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED EITHER REBELLION OR INVASION.

AND IF YOU WANT TO PRESERVE HABEAS CORPUS, RECOMMEND THIS THREAD OR YOU MAY END UP CORPUS DELECTI!

[StellaBlue]

1. The PATRIOT ACT is also unconstitutional

as is "In God We Trust" being on the money.

Et cetera.

Not to mention the current occupant of the White House and the manner of his selection.

I have no hope.

[ForFuxakes]

3. Then for God sakes vote Dem in November!

Everything *co has done has been done with the cover of the repugs...get rid of them, you get rid of the disease!

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. I agree!

:thumbsup:

[Pryderi]

35. No. For God's Sakes Get Out and Work for GOTV and Candidates! We need mor

e than just vote. We need to get people to canvass, register voters, drive people to the polls if need be.

[indepat]

23. And who voted for the Patriot Act or support this give a diddle-dy shit

what the Constitution says? By their works the enemy within (domestic) shall be known. No punishment is severe enough for those who knowingly violate their oaths of office to abrogate the Constitution IMNSHO. Edited to add sentence.

[acmavm]

2. Not in bush**world it doesn't. He can do anything he wants.

[bdamomma]

17. and what we can't challenge these thugs come on

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. He's the "Decider" after all! Self absorbed little prick! I can so

believe that he called the US Constitution "just a God damned piece of paper". I really believe he said that. :grr:

[mmonk]

4. That is my understanding as well.

[angstlessk]

5. Which Constitution? The Weimar Constitution?

Cause they are both subject to dictator rules!

[Atman]

6. Who gets to decide "rebellion," and what if that is exactly what W wants?

Big "what ifs," but I put nothing past these fuckers. We keep talking about "taking to the streets," or national strikes. I can easily see Chimpy using his newly granted powers as King to label such protests as "rebellion." Think about it. Be afraid of these people. They're certainly afraid of us!

[davekriss]

18. There are already executive orders...

...for FEMA to detain people in camps if we get too noisy. Then there's the Halliburton contingency, the $380 million paid for them to be ready to build concentration camps "for other programs" at a moment's notice. So with this bill, the USA Patriot Act's broad definition of "terrorism", this bill's introduction that any "person" (not "alien") materially supporting enemies defined by the Executive will be denied habeus corpus and potentially detained indefinately, we have all the ingredients for the October Surprise and outright, brutal suppression of dissent.

Perhaps the October Surprise will be another false flag attack justifying invasion of Iran, and the definitions, camps, suspension of habeus corpus, etc. will all be in place to mute dissent and possibly marshal other U.S. resources to "pay" for the next adventure ("hi, I'm George Bush, I am suspending the social security system because, to keep us safe, we need to use the Trust Fund to fight this war against evildoers who would take our freedoms away...< snicker, snicker >... now watch this swing!").

We are a lost nation.

[lonestarnot]

7. I believe you are right! They are fucking nuts. It will be back

on the floor again.

[Atman]

9. Maybe THAT is part of the plan...acting "tough" because they know...

...it will be of no real consequence, since it will promptly be overturned by the SCOTUS. Then, the righties can use that cludgeon to hammer home the point that the courts are out of control and making America unsafe.

It is tough staying one step ahead of the evil masterminds at BushCo.

.

[exlrrp]

46. You are SO right!

This won't make it through the Supreme Court--Spector knows that too and so do most of them so for them its just windowdressing they can take home and pretend theyre doing something with. This is allo part of the plan to make them lok strong and the Democrats weak. Also gives fuel to their claims the Dems are obstructionists.
But the naked truth is obvious---this is unconstitutional as hell, they know it but they passd it anyway.

You're dead el righto about this also: "It is tough staying one step ahead of the evil masterminds at BushCo" they are some clever, clever people.

[bunny planet]

8. Absolutely!!!!!

K and R
:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. With the court packed by the Junta, who will rule against the Junta?

Even if we win the entire Legislative and Executive branches in 2008, by the time progressives have a crack at restacking the Supreme Court those who are culpable won't be around to be found guilty.







Hopefully, because they will have been "disappeared" under the very laws they are pushing for now. :evilgrin:

[progressoid]

11. Hmmm. But I wouldn't be surprised if this S. Court would uphold it.

They could easily cherry pick the "public safety" bits and let it slide.

[Dems Will Win]

30. I know the Supreme Court is RW but I don't think this will pass thru

It is habeas corpus. My vain hope for following the law of the land.

[progressoid]

31. Yeah I have hope too. But then again, this court also sid the 2000

election ruling couldn't be used as a precedent. What's to say they don't pull that crap again.

[bear425]

12. Breaking: Specter bill for habeas corpus defeated in Senate

www.rawstory.com

No story yet, just headline

[TahitiNut]

22. Yep. 48-51 ... guess who the '51' were.

:grr:

[LostinVA]

40. Damn Olympia Snowe

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. I think they all know this

We are merely watching political theater.
Congress often passes unconstitutional laws, knowing they are DOA before the Supremes.

Of course, with Scalia running things, who knows?

[Gidney N Cloyd]

15. But Tony Snow said Bush decides what's constitutional, didn't he?

[Bandit]

16. Don't you know the USA has been invaded by thousand of Al Qaeda

That is what they told us when Bush* first got his War on...Thousands of sleeper cells they said.

[blm]

19. Kerry just made that exact point - constution doesn't ALLOW suspension of

Habeus Corpus.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

24. but apparently, Lincoln did suspend it.

and although there was disagreement by Chief Justice Taney, he ignored the him!
The suspension lasted until after the war - 1866.

http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm

This stand off resolved with Ex parte Milligan.

http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/exparte_milligan.htm

[TayTay]

26. That was an internal rebellion

This bill allows it outside of those Constitutional restrictions.

[jmowreader]

38. Lincoln's suspension was constitutional

The Constitution allows habeas corpus to be suspended in the event of rebellion, which is what a civil war is.

What it DOESN'T allow is for habeas corpus to be suspended in the case of a foreign war--especially one the man who started it won't even raise taxes to pay for.

[exlrrp]

44. Taney had Southern Sympathies

He OKed the Dred Scott decision and also the Fugitive Slave Act. Lincoln was right to ignore him

[Yupster]

27. Didn't seem to bother

Lincoln though.

[Atman]

28. You don't think that half the nation seceding could be considered...

"rebellion?" It sounds tailor-made. I think Lincoln had it right, but no way in hell are we under rebellion or invasion currently.

HOWEVER...and this is HUGH considering the forward-thinking, long-range planning junta like BushCo...if we take to the streets after they steal the November election, bingo, Bush gets his "rebellion." Right?

.

[krispifried]

39. But we will be the first time Amerifatties get off their asses

and really hit the streets...

[blm]

29. extenuating circumstance, which is allowed for already WITHIN THE LAW.

.

[TahitiNut]

21. "... but some are more equal than others."

The slicing and dicing of the Constitution as reduced it to mere confetti.

Grand Hypocrisy #1: Under Fascist 'interpretation,' the Executive Branch is free to ignore any and all provisions of the Constitution (which is the basis for the very existence of the Executive Branch) outside of the territorial boundaries of the United States. The specious rationale for this stance is that only the Executive Branch - not the Judicial Branch and not the Legislative Branch - is given any power to operate outside of those boundaries, specifically in the form of the Armed Forces. There's a HUGE fly in the ointment of this hypocrisy and that's in the form of international treaties - treaties which become the "supreme law of the land" under the terms of the Constitution - treaties which require Legislative approval.

Grand Hypocrisy #2: Under Fascist 'interpretation,' the Constitution only protects the rights of citizens of the United States from abridgments and infringements of the Executive Branch. Non-citizens are not accorded such protections, particularly in combination with Grand Hypocrisy #1. This completely ignores the fact that the Constitution is itself the creation of "People," not "citizens," and is wholly subordinate to the very Rights of People to even establish the Constitution.


What we're witnessing is the destruction of the Constitution itself, allegedly based on the powers granted by the very Constitution being destroyed!!

In logic, this is called a reductio ad absurdum and should be sufficient for any sentient being to comprehend its illegitimacy.

[Dems Will Win]

25. It's kinder gentler fascism--so far

[Dems Will Win]

32. kick

[Dems Will Win]

33. kick

[dweller]

34. ...

:kick:

Rec,
dp

[intaglio]

36. k & R

[MrCoffee]

37. Wrong Wrong Wrong.

It's only unconstitutional if the court says it is, and the court CANNOT say that because NO ONE can challenge this bill. I can't come up with a single potential plaintiff who would have standing to challenge it. Not a single one. And i'm a lawyer.

Can you?

[rman]

41. I think it's a preventative strike against rebellion,

entirely within expectations of the neocon's M.O.

[mom cat]

42. Yes it is unconstitutional, but until (or IF) SCOTUS does its job, it is

the law of the land and can be quite a dangerous tool in the hands of a madman who has 2= more years.

[Canuckistanian]

43. Tell me - How is this ever going to get to the SCOTUS?

If the victims of this law are not allowed anywhere near a court of law, who can challenge it?

And since the lower courts are now obliged to dismiss any of these cases (if the prosecution cites it), then how can the case gain traction?

[spanone]

45. I heard a white house lawyer arguing that we were under invasion.

Since 911