From: "Geo." 

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Geo.

"Ad"  wrote in
message news:45b733b3$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml
>
> "In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S.
> Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S.
> Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every
> American.
>
> Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary
> Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn’t
> explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called
> Great Writ can be suspended.
>
> “There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a
> prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.
>
> Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican,
> stammering.
>
> “Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t
> take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean
> you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or
> invasion?”
>
> Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the
> United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas
> corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be
> suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.”
>
> “You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,”
> Specter said.
>
> While Gonzales’s statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it, his
> logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other fundamental
> rights that Americans hold dear also don’t exist because the Constitution
> often spells out those rights in the negative.
>
> For instance, the First Amendment declares that “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.”
>
> Applying Gonzales’s reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment
> doesn’t explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose,
> speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The amendment simply bars the
> government, i.e. Congress, from passing laws that would impinge on these
> rights.
>
> Similarly, Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states that “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.”
>
> The clear meaning of the clause, as interpreted for more than two
> centuries, is that the Founders recognized the long-established English
> law principle of habeas corpus, which guarantees people the right of due
> process, such as formal charges and a fair trial.
>
> That Attorney General Gonzales would express such an extraordinary
> opinion, doubting the constitutional protection of habeas corpus, suggests
> either a sophomoric mind or an unwillingness to respect this
> well-established right, one that the Founders considered so important that
> they embedded it in the original text of the Constitution.
>
> Other cherished rights – including freedom of religion and speech – were
> added later in the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.
>
> Ironically, Gonzales may be wrong in another way about the lack of
> specificity in the Constitution’s granting of habeas corpus rights. Many
> of the legal features attributed to habeas corpus are delineated in a
> positive way in the Sixth Amendment, which reads:
>
>     “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
> speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
> wherein the crime shall have been committed … and to be informed of the
> nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses
> against him; [and] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses.”"
>
>
>
> Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5