[Vision2020] This Attorney General Has to Go?

[Tony]

Thanks Chas.  Wouldn't prohibiting the government from impinging upon a 
right, fairly well protect it?

And I'm afraid I missed your point about the 6th amendment.

-T
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chasuk" <chasuk at gmail.com>
To: "Tony" <tonytime at clearwire.net>
Cc: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] This Attorney General Has to Go?


>> >    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."
>
>