Gonzales says the Constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus

Well, they already suspended it so that's kind of moot.

From what I understand, they only suspended habeas corpus for non-citizens who are considered enemy combatants. But still, if the Constitution doesn't, in their reading, guarantee habeas corpus, there's nothing to stop them from drafting a law that suspends it for, say, citizens charged with treason or some such.

But we have a lot of smart lawyers here. Is there solid legal support for the claim that a Constitutional prohibition against suspending or abridging a right is not, in fact, a Constitutional guarantee of such a right?

I think he is trying to suggest that since habeas corpus is not constitutionally mandated, Congress has the power to suspend. But no Supreme Court in the land would ever agree with that reasoning.

ETA: xpost with Burrell.

2d edit to respond to Burrell: off the top of my head I don't know. But I know that when Miranda was passed, Congress passed a little-known statute that overturned it. Even C.J. Rehnquist, who publicly stated that Miranda was not constitutionally mandated, changed his mind when this law came up for review, in Dickerson. The Court does not necessarily willingly allow Congress to limit its power in this way and I cannot imagine they would interpret the Constitution otherwise.

I think it was the Daily Show that did something about Gonzales's statement, wasn't it with Jason Jones? I'll have to look it up online when I get home.

Thanks for the insent, Kalshane. Somehow I managed to misplace my phone. At least it wasn't until after I left one message and talked to the other person of the unsettling calls. This one will be a cakewalk in comparison.

You're welcome. Hope it's helpful.

Thanks, bon bon. I just went and reread the Bill of Rights and was surprised that the language actually seems to worded more along the lines of "No person shall be denied..." than "habeas corpus shall only be abridged if...," which sure sounds like a guarantee to me.

My favorite Tunguska explanation is that it was a small, icy comet. Where it hit is so remote that it actually was some years before anybody official went out to look, so most of the debris either melted or weathered/was grown over by the time they got there. Except, of course, for the tree trunks knocked over for miles and miles.

There was a whole series of books of Fortean-type reports, such as Strange, Stranger, Strangest and Stranger Than Fiction that would have been around when Kathy and I were kids. I know my Dad had a bunch of them. Didn't warp me hardly at all, except that I always feel skeptical when an august elderly scientist pronounces something "impossible."

From you I buy it.

Hey!

I think it was the Daily Show that did something about Gonzales's statement, wasn't it with Jason Jones? I'll have to look it up online when I get home.

It was the Daily Show, but I got annoyed before I found it online.

Oh, snap! It was not TDS, it was Colbert. And here it is: [link]

Thanks, Comedy Central video search!

Timelies all!

Went swimming. Muscles are sore. Have lost pronouns.