Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News US suspends Habeas Corpus for all noncitizens

  1. Sep 29, 2006 #1
    An incredible power has been given to the executive in recent hours, and many are celebrating.

    (Boston Globe)

    Compare with the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9:


    Arlen Specter sponsored an amendment reinserting this right, which was struck down by demagogues:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0609290178sep29,1,1387725.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 30, 2006 #2
    Further news articles:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-detain29sep29,1,2271064.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  4. Sep 30, 2006 #3
    I'm idly wondering about the disturbing parallel in history when a severely exaggerated terrorist threat was used to justify suspending - all in one day - the rights of habeas corpus, as well as privacy of postal and telegraphic communications (~wiretapping) (as well as censorship of the press and political freedoms, which we aren't really seeing at all);

    Reichstag Fire Decree, 1933

    It's of extreme fortune that the parallels are relatively shallow, and significant mechanisms still protect most consitutional rights (if not all). Or at the very least, that the rights of political opinion and organization still exist and are clearly in no danger - that alone is something even Hitler could not have surmounted.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 30, 2006
  5. Sep 30, 2006 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    The fact that such language is included in federal law, which is probably unconstitutional, is rather disturbing. On the other hand, the Constitution as originally written, did not grant, guarantee, or otherwise recognize the rights of women, Indians (indigenous people already living in the land to be claimed by the US government), slaves (then mostly Africans), and poor people (the majority of the population). It was up to those darn Liberals to see that everyone got the same rights. I guess they ruined a good thing, and George Bush and his cohorts, borrowing from Reichstag Fire Decree, 1933, will set things right. :rolleyes:
  6. Sep 30, 2006 #5
    The federal Constitution (even as originally written) does not disenfranchise anybody. However, the constitutions of many of the various states did allow for disenfranchisement. Look closely at the Constitution. The procedure for selecting Representatives is a system in which the "people" choose. Those election procedures which did not involve a popular vote involved a selection by the state legislature (Senate, as originally written) or by electors (President).

    The only mention of race or other similar considerations is made in the "3/5 compromise." But even this stipulation does not bar those "other persons" from voting, as the compromise determines only the number of the Representatives. The states were allowed to disenfranchise mainly by invoking the following clause from the federal Constitution:
    It can therefore be argued that the blame for disenfranchisement lies with the state governments, not with the federal Constitution. A study of the original New Jersey constitution is instructional in the independence state constitutions enjoyed from the federal one, and from those of other states.

    I argue that the 15th and 19th Amendments are unnecessary. A similar legal standing for women, blacks and others could have been reached much earlier through a strict interpretation of the word "people" or "person" (where "strict" means that a "person" is a "person" and that adjectives such as "black, "female," or "poor" are only adjectives which describe that person).

    Even if you are correct in your contention that the Liberals won equal rights through the years, it was only a correction of a very liberal mentality in which the definition of "person" could be construed to mean something entirely different; i.e. "white property-owning male."

    No matter what political face the southern bigots wore, they were true die-hard loose-constructionists.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 30, 2006
  7. Oct 1, 2006 #6
    Is this part of a mid-term strategy?

    Does the congressional majority believe that we are in the midst of a Rebellion :bugeye:

    It can't be an Invasion, we are fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here, right? :confused:

    Seriously though when you combine this with the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, it gives more and more power to a more and more unpopular executive. One that has shown a tendency to fully utilize force and power to accomplish political objectives. (See Iraq war)
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook