[Vision2020] This Attorney General Has to Go?

[Chasuk]

> >    GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the
> > Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the
> > Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it's
> > never been the case, and I'm not a Supreme —

> >    SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says
> > you can't take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion.
> > Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is
> > 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." It doesn't say that. It
> > simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except
> > by —

This is very troubling.  Think of the ramifications if Gonzales's
logic holds sway.  Let's extrapolate.  Remember that our First
Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances."

Does this mean, because the First Amendment doesn't explicitly grant
our rights to worship as we choose, or of free speech, or of peaceable
assembly, that the First Amendment is really only a prohibition
against the government passing laws which would impinge these rights?
That these rights aren't guaranteed?  By Gonzales's logic, this seems
to be the case.

Besides, what about the Sixth Amendment?

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed … and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted
with the witnesses against him; [and] to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses."