Imperial presidents
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, testifying at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17, advanced the stunning notion that habeas corpus -- the long-enshrined right to go to federal court and challenge one's imprisonment -- is not protected by the Constitution.
That was news to Sen. Arlen Specter, R. Pa., among others, but it shouldn't come as that big a surprise. Gonzales has been the point man for the Bush administration's radical effort to assert imperial powers for the presidency.
Nor is this the first time that presidents have abused their power. The Arts & Letters Daily Web site has a link to an interesting New Yorker piece by Caleb Crain describing Andrew Jackson's imposition of martial law in New Orleans in the wake of the famous battle he won against the British in 1815.
Jackson's high-handedness set a tone for his subsequent presidency, and, according to Crain, established some dangerous precedents that still haunt us.
Comments
It was clear a few weeks earlier, when Stimpson smeared the lawyers who defend enemy combatants/ those accused of terrorism. ( First, Accuse All the Lawyers of Treason.)
I'm just glad that Congress actually questioned him on this point-- too many other shady deals have been cut to limit or remove our customary rights these last few years.
Posted by: ScottM | January 25, 2007 4:27 PM
No surprise that Arlen Specter would be surprised but if I remember correctly, the Supreme Court in 1996 during the eight year reign of Clinton aka.Greed and Corruption ruled that a limit on habeas corpus in death penalty cases did not amount to an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus.Also stated in Article 1- The privelage of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. I would say in that case it is not guaranteed. Surprised?
Posted by: Brian Murray | January 26, 2007 8:13 AM
so,Brian,do you have anything nice to say about freedom ?
Posted by: jaun rapido | January 26, 2007 10:01 AM
Saying that there are limits on habeas corpus is a far cry from saying it's not even protected by the Constitution. There are limits on free speech, too, but would you equate that with an absence of constitutional protection?
Maybe you're not worried because your guys are in the White House at the moment, but would you be so cavalier about the erosion of our constitutional protections if someone you don't like (like Clinton) was residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.?
Posted by: Mike D. | January 26, 2007 10:18 AM
"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."
Is there rebellion? An invasion that hasn't made the news? Also note that this limitation is in the powers of Congress-- it sounds like any suspension of the Writ should be their decision, not the Executive branch's.
Posted by: ScottM | January 26, 2007 5:24 PM
Rebellion? invasion? what?
Posted by: jaun rapido | January 26, 2007 6:57 PM