I can accept such idiocy from some common Joe Schmoe off the street. In fact many might not know why this is such a farce and make the erroneous counter argument that the Constitution does indeed explicitly grant we the people the right of Habeas Corpus. In point of fact it does not, but let me break it down for you so that you can understand exactly how big an a$$clown Gonzales just showed himself to be when it comes to a fundamental element of his job... understanding the Constitution.
The Constitution does not grant ANYTHING to We The People. The Constitution is written specifically to define the rights and limitations of the Government. You see, the most basic and fundamental assumption of the United States Constitution is that ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO WE THE PEOPLE. The Constitution then goes on to explicitly state what the Government Can, and most importantly, what it CANNOT do. In the case of Habeas Corpus it explicitly states that the ONLY cases under which the Government can suspend the right of Habeas Corpus is when either we are invaded or a state of rebellion exists and then only when it will help maintain public safety. Currently neither is true thus the government has no right to deny Habeas Corpus.
See how that works. By default WE HAVE ALL RIGHTS. The document doesn't gives us the rights, we already have them. The document ONLY defines when and how much the government can intrude upon those rights.
The problem is that over time the 'common sense' understanding of the constitution has come to be it is the granter of our rights and thus is the source of our rights. Nothing could be further from the truth and if our Founding Fathers are aware of such idiocy at the level of the Attorney General of the United States of America they are spinning in their graves.
The Bill of Rights is not a list of our rights. It is the limitation of Government power to intrude on our most basic and fundamental rights. Let me put that another way. The Bill of Rights represents those issues which were deemed so important that it could not be assumed the government would not tramp on them at some point so they EXPLICITLY prohibit the government from intruding upon them. Thus it states things like.
Amendment 1:
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.
Read that again, pay attention in particular to the start "Congress shall make no law". CONGRESS. The constitution is not talking to the people but stating an explicit limit on the power of Government. It allows no exceptions. It doesn’t say in time of war the government can suspend the ability of the people to peaceably assemble. It says NO LAW. If they do try you can say what part of NO don’t you understand. When the government breaks with the constitution it is in effect saying it rules the people and not the other way around. It breaks the pact We the People made that government would be formed under the strictures of the constitution. In fact it nullifies its right to govern us.
If you have never read the constitution before or if you always thought of it as granting We the People our rights PLEASE go read it again in this light. Especially the 10th amendment.
Why does it work this way? Power Corrupts and Absolute power Corrupts absolutely. When people make a compact with a government they make a compact with the devil. Governments allow stability. But they also invite Tyranny. Once the power structure is in place it is hard to challenge and it ALWAYS acts in its interests and not the peoples. Prior to the constitution most governments had been formed around the idea that they granted people their rights. IE the King or other organized power of the land had been imbued with some divine right to give and take away the rights of the people in order to run the country/province etc... The grand experiment of the American Republic was that it turned that notion on its head. We decided that it wasn't the government that doled out the rights but the people who did. Thus instead of the government granting We the People rights it is We the People that dole out and take away the rights of the Government. Thus the idea the government works for us and not the other way around.
Alberto Gonzales…. Go back to school and re-take your Con-Law classes. Jeebus this statement makes anything Quayle ever said look genius by comparison and at least none of his statements could be interpreted as a direct challenge against the fundamental nature of the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment