Thanks for clearing that up. I do think that the origin and nature of rights bears directly on this topic. If our freedom is slipping away, it is because government is using its power to usurp an unethical authority. What I’m saying is that if the right to the writ can be destroyed by this Gonzales maneouvre, then it is proof that the alleged Constitutional guarantees are illusory, and subject to the whims and interpretations of men with power.
It occurs to me that, sidestepping arguments over what rights exist when they are discussed certain ways in the Constitution, there’s a very simple thing going on here. The Constitution forbids restriction of habeas corpus except in cases of rebellion or invasion, and Gonzales is…restricting habeas corpus. Not much you can really do with that.
He did leave himself a weasel-hole, a rhetorical trap door. Note: “…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…”
He could sidestep with “every citizen” not being equivalent to “every individual”. He could say that of course every citizen has assurances of habeas, but that does not necessarily extend to every individual. Non-citizens such as terrorist infiltrators and illegal aliens of other stripes are not so blessed. As well as such persons who have voluntarily relinquished their citizenship rights by way of treasonous actions or utterances and whose names appear on The List…
(OK, made that up, not a true fact you can look up. I hope.)
So he has some squirming room.
Nah. They already tried that.
Well, there’s also this clause prohibiting Bills of Attainder . . .