Limiting Habeas Corpus : Limiting Government Power
30. Jan, 2007 
8 Comments
There’s been quite an uproar over recent comments on Habeas Corpus by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported:
“The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas,” Gonzales told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17.
Gonzales acknowledged that the Constitution declares “habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless … in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” But he insisted that “there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”
Specter was incredulous, asking how the Constitution could bar the suspension of a right that didn’t exist — a right, he noted, that was first recognized in medieval England as a shield against the king’s power to dispatch troublesome subjects to royal dungeons.
Although you might wonder why this issue qualifies as a concern of the Tenth Amendment, it’s these statements by both Gonzales and Specter that warrant special attention. Their position, if formally adopted by the government, would change the entire structure and basis of the Constitution; from one which created a government of specifically limited powers to one that gives the government all powers not prohibited.
First, more from the Chronicle:
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said this week that Gonzales stood by his remarks but was asserting only that the text of the Constitution does not guarantee habeas corpus.
Aboslutely Correct!
The Constitution, contrary to what many people believe, does not give people rights to free speech, trial by jury, to be armed, or even habeas corpus. In fact, the Constitution does not give people any rights, whatsoever!
Instead of giving us rights, the Constitution simply acknowledges that our rights are natural and inherent, and seeks to prevent that enemy of the ages which has always sought to take away our rights: The Government.
Simply put, the Constitution is a limit on government power. Nothing more. Nothing less.
The founders knew what was so obvious from history, and what remains true today – that the greatest threats to our liberty always comes from our own government.
As the 10th Amendment states so clearly, if the Constitution doesn’t give a power to the federal government, it can’t do it. Period.
Much of what the federal government engages in on a day-to-day basis is in a direct violation of the Tenth Amendment. The statements by Gonzales, Specter, and Roehrkasse are all examples of how the feds have destroyed not only the Tenth Amendment, but the meaning and intent of the Constitution as a whole.
No, Mr. Gonzales, the Constitution does NOT say that every individual is guaranteed the right of habeas corpus! No, Mr. Specter, rights DO exist even if they’re not listed in the Constitution. No, Mr. Roehrkasse, the text of the Constitution does NOT guarantee habeas corpus – the text of the Constitution guarantees that YOU and your accomplices in the federal government cannot take that right away!
What the feds can do in regards to habeas corpus was written quite plainly in Article I, 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.”
Nowhere else is Habeas Corpus even mentioned. Thus, since the federal government was not given the power to suspend habeas in any other situation, it can’t do it.
The Tenth Amendment has been repeatedly ignored and directly violated almost continuously since FDR and the New Deal showed it utter disregard in the Great Depression. When the Federal government takes on functions not specifically given to it in the Constitution, in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment, it’s only a matter of time before it starts taking away other rights.
Without a strict adherence to the Tenth Amendment, it’s only a matter of time before the government starts spying on us, opening our mail, creating “free speech zones”, telling us we can’t have guns, and more. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
It’s high-time for “We The People” to start demanding that the Feds start obeying this fundamental law. We are getting alarmingly close to having no rights at all – other than what the government, in its divine mercy, decides to grant us. This landslide must be stopped quickly, and the 10th Amendment is the rule to follow, or we’ll soon find ourselves in an overt dictatorship.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Please visit http://ministryoflove.wordpress.com to learn about our creative protest of the Military Commissions Act.
Regards,
O’Brien
In 1973, Senate Report 93-549:
“Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. [...] This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens. [...] A majority of people of the United States have spent all their lives under emergency rule. [...] For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency.”
Dr. Gene Schroder wrote a book, War and Emergency Powers google it and read how licensing and control over everthing went to D.C. and still is today.
I’m on your side in this, but I think you missed Specter’s point. His comment about the constitution not being able to ban infringement on a right that does not exist was his affirmation that therefore these rights, including habeas corpos do exist, and as he said, have existed in anglo-american history for centuries. You therefore do him an injustice to link him with Gonzales, to whom he is obviously ideologically opposed.
T. Grinnalds, some good feedback here.
Yes, Mr. Specter clearly did make the statement that Habeas has existed for centuries – and he opposes Mr Gonzales’ position. But, the point made here is that he didn’t stand up to the test of an “ardent supporter” of the 10th Amendment – by citing the fact that such arbitrary restriction/suspension of Habeas Corpus is not an enumerated power.
It is our position that absent an enumerated power in the Constitution to restrict Habeas – the 10th Amendment stipulates that the Federal Government cannot do it. Period.
We hope that Mr. Specter will continue to oppose such tactics. We also hope that he will improve his standing as a Constitutionalist by demanding strict limits on the federal government – in regards to many other federal programs - as mandated by the 10th Amendment.
I have been studying the constitution for 6 years now. I recently started studying the laws. I am not up yet on procedures and would like some help. My son challenged jurisdiction in superior court. The judge denied it off the record and never proved jurisdiction and plowed my son through the hearing. Somebody tell me what the next step is and how I can help him. He is in the early stages of self educating himself.
the attorney general of texas is wrongfully garnishing or withholding money from my checks for arrears i do not owe for child support.i have not owed child support since 1994 when my girls amancipated. i tried to contact the agent of the ag office and he never gets back to me. how do i stop withholdings until i can get to a judge to clear this up?
Doug, this is not a place for legal advice – I recommend that you find a proper attorney to answer those questions…try legalmatch.com