HeyBub wrote:

jJim McLaughlin wrote:


Last i lookd the Constitution as still in force ( well, except for
habeus corus and a few bits and pieces here and there tha Bush doesn't
like) and I am sure that you are a big supporter of the Constitution.
You just love the Second Amendment, right?


You mean the Article I, Section 9 part that reads:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless
when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

This, of course, seemingly conflicts with the president's Article II powers.
But that apparent conflict was sorted out hundreds of years ago; the
president's wartime powers trump the habeas corpus restriction. For example,
during WW2, we had 511 POW camps in the US, housing some 475,000 of enemy
POWs (some even US citizens). Not one had habeas corpus rights.


Problem is that the recent statute purports to eliminate the writ, not
merely suspend it. And under the cConstitution you can't eliminate the
writ. Further, the writ may only be suspended in case of Invasion or
Rbellion. Last I looked there was neither going on. So the
legislation is invalid on its face.

Further, the legislation purports to apply to everyone -- youtr
grandmother, your grandkids, your significant other, and anybody at
Gitmpo.

When you quote Article I Section 9, take the time to read the
legislation in detail and quotre it, too.

Be real careful what you wish for, you may get it.





Bottom line: enemy combatants (legal or illegal) don't get habeas corpus
rights.

I love the 2nd Amendment. I have a disagreement - as do the various
appellate courts - about its interpretation. Interestingly, in today's news,
I see that a free concealed handgun carry class is being offered to Utah
teachers so more of them can carry a concealed handgun in their classrooms.