Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:35:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2792 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Well, you want your interpretation, and literal, too. Specter takes the
Constitution literally when he cites “except in the case of invasion or
rebellion”, but when Gonzales takes the Constitution literally, you cry
foul.
|
I’m not up on this one apparently-- where did Specter take a literal
interpretation where he ought not to have?
|
Well, not considering 9-11 an invasion would be a literal interpretation, no?
| |
In this case, it seems utterly plain. If the interpretation is that no right
is expressly granted to anyone, but only that when it is granted it can’t be
taken away, then the entire phrase becomes useless. In other words, either
they meant “everyone has the right”, or they were trying to fit in a
completely meaningless sentence into the Constitution.
|
The Constitution directs that habeas corpus can be suspended in certain
circumstances; it is not an “inalienable” right, unless you believe that
individuals can, through their own actions, forfeit their rights.
| |
If they meant something more complex, like “Citizens meeting requirement X
will be entitled with this right, and foreigners with requirement Y will be
entitled with the right”, they’d have said so.
DaveE
|
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) I guess the distinction I'm trying to make here is that if Gonzales's assertion is accurate, there's no definitions anywhere of what constitutes someone with the right to habeas corpus and someone who doesn't. In effect, it invalidates Article (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) I'm not up on this one apparently-- where did Specter take a literal interpretation where he ought not to have? In this case, it seems utterly plain. If the interpretation is that no right is expressly granted to anyone, but only that when it (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
115 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
