just emailed a RW person I know on the 2nd amendment (re: Gonzalez and habeus corpus)

[NewJeffCT]

I said that I forgot to ask this a few weeks ago, but I wanted his opinion...

I used Gonzalez logic on habeus corpus (the constitution only says habeus cannot be taken away, not that there is a right to it) but did not say it was Gonzalez logic.

I asked him if there is no right to keep & bears arms to begin with, that means that right cannot be infringed at all. I wanted to know if he stood by that idea or not.

If he thinks it is ridiculous (which he will say, given that he is very pro-gun) , then I'll say he disagrees with Team Bush and their legal opinions.

I wonder what he'll say?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. His head will explode

and then he will send you an email full of bad language.

[Toots]

2. Except it is established as a "right" hence the lable "Bill of Rights"

But the tenth Ammendment does say that unless explicitly forbidden it is accepted that a right exists.

[NewJeffCT]

3. not according to Alberto Gonzalez

he says that the Constitution says things like Habeus Corpus cannot be taken away, not that it is actually a right.

[Toots]

4. You are talking apples and oranges

The second ammendment is one of the original "Bill of Rights" and Gonzalez does not argue any of those rights may be taken. He says Habea Corpus was never established as a "Right" . I see no where in the Constitution that claims it is a "Right" but it does say it can not be taken from the people so it infers it is a right without actually coming out and saying so as it does for the second ammendment..While I think it is imperative that Gonzalez is checked and questioned at every turn it is also imperative to use the truth while doing so..

[NewJeffCT]

8. Don't the 9th & 10th amendments establish habeus corpus as a right?

I'm not a constitutional expert by any means, or even a lawyer, but it sounds like it from my reading of it:
>>>
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

<<<

And, this is what Gonzalez and Specter said:
>>
Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?

Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/18/15219/0788

Sorry for the tardy response, I had a long weekend and forgot about this.

[NYC Liberal]

7. I think his logic was that the Constitution labels the writ of habeas corpus as

"The privilege" of the writ of habeas corpus and not "the right," and also because it CAN be taken away in case of "rebellion or Invasion."

Anyway, even if the logic is sound, it doesn't mean that what they're doing is right or the good way to go. I wouldn't trust these assholes at ALL.

[Aristus]

9. That's the Ninth Amendment.

* Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

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

Here's the Tenth:

* Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[jody]

5. Pennsylvania said in its constitution dated 28 Sept. 1776

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 and retained its statements about "inalienable rights".

Because those rights were inalienable, PA's citizens could not have given those rights away when they ratified the U.S. Constitution.

Vermont used almost identical words in its constitution of 1777.

For Pennsylvania, Vermont, and other states that declared self-defense is an "inalienable right" their citizens have that right protected by either the Second Amendment or the Ninth Amendment.

[shield20]

6. ??? A little confused by your wording, but...

IF the bill of rights did not enumerate the right to bear arms, that right would still exist, and it still could not be infringed, because it was/is understood to be a ntaural right deriving from Life, liberty, etc. Since the congress was not specifically granted the power to regulate arms other then re: the miltia, they wouldn't be able to - period. The "congress shall provide for the militia" clause elsewhere in the const already had reinforced the right of the people to keep/bear arms. The entire BOR were much needed amendments, that overide everything previous, and more succinctly articulated some rights which were protected, and in some cases why.

Obviously it was a VERY GOOD thing it was enumerated as the people wanted, otherwise the govt would have REALLY overstepped their powers on this issue even more, just like it did/does re:most other concerns & rights, no matter how unconstitutional.