Current Suspension of Habeas Corpus Illegal under Constitutional Law

[The2ndAmendment]

From Article I, Section 9 (Section 9 are the LIMITATIONS OF CONGRESS):

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.

First, before we continue, there was this sly attempt to block the arguments about the NDAA and suspension of Habeas Corpus, read this excerpt from the NDAA:

Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.

Hmm, are military courts under ARticle III (Judicial Branch)? NOPE. Military Courts are Article II Courts, so yes, the President may detain you forever without Habeas Corpus. For more understanding of Article I, II and III Courts read the link below. Also, that is the only time that Habeas Corpus appears in the entire NDAA bill.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_Article_II_courts_and_Article_III_courts

Yep, you got trolled by our elected officials.
---------------------------------------

The suspension of Habeas Corpus is unconstitutional for FOUR reasons:

1) Only Congress may authorize the ability of the President to suspend Habeas Corpus.

Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1863 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2) Even if Habeas Corpus is suspended, it can only be done during a time of Rebellion or Invasion. Are we in a state of Rebellion? No. Are we being invaded? Maybe, but then that brings us to point number 3 and 4.

3) If we are being Invaded, Congress must first make a Declaration of War (so that the people have direct control over Declarations of War). Our Founding Fathers made it this way so that special things (like Habeas Corpus) that may only be invoked during a Time of War was done only after the PEOPLE GAVE CONSENT TO THAT WAR (Congress = The People).

4) Even if Congress declares war, Invasion = Military Occupation of our Territory. Is there an army occupying US soil? No.

 

[Lakhota]

Tell it to SCOTUS.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Tell it to SCOTUS.

That's impossible since you can never get to Court (because you are detained forever without due process).

Even if you could, the government has Sovereign Immunity to protect itself from being sued.

----------------
However, only an Authoritarian dipshit like yourself would come up with that response.

Thanks for the free bump though!

 

[Unkotare]

Are you talking about non-US citizen enemy combatants who are not being held on American soil or subject to civilian courts?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you talking about non-US citizen enemy combatants who are not being held on American soil or subject to civilian courts?

How about US Citizens freely exercising their legal right to travel abroad? A US Citizen and his 16 year old son were murdered by the US Government without ever even charging them with a crime.

One may have been helping AQ, we have no concrete evidence of that other then the word of the same Government that violated his right to a day in Court, he NEVER took up arms against the Country, at least there is no evidence of that.

His son was not even accused of joining AQ, he was just murdered for being in Yemen. Again, no charges were ever laid.

 

[Unkotare]

Well then, the head of Executive Branch should be held accountable.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Are you talking about non-US citizen enemy combatants who are not being held on American soil or subject to civilian courts?

Although our government SHOULD (when possible) grant them due process protection (simply to obtain more information if they actually are guilty) the government is not obliged to do so.

However, on the issue of United States citizens, Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution states the following:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Did you intend your comment as an honest question, or some trolling strawman argument?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you talking about non-US citizen enemy combatants who are not being held on American soil or subject to civilian courts?

Although our government SHOULD (when possible) grant them due process protection (simply to obtain more information if they actually are guilty) the government is not obliged to do so.

However, on the issue of United States citizens, Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution states the following:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Did you intend your comment as an honest question, or some trolling strawman argument?

What two people accused the 16 year old of Treason?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Tell it to SCOTUS.

2nd just may be one of the nuttiest fruit loops to grace these boards. I'll go out on a limb and call him a Fruit Cake.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

What two people accused the 16 year old of Treason?

To be totally fair in this particular argument:

The 16 year old boy was killed by accident, wrong place wrong time.

The 16 year old boy, even though he was a citizen, was not on US soil, and we cannot enforce the US Constitution outside of our territory.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Tell it to SCOTUS.

2nd just may be one of the nuttiest fruit loops to grace these boards. I'll go out on a limb and call him a Fruit Cake.

You are entitled to you own opinion.

Also, at least I have my rep on.



Thanks for the free bump!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Tell it to SCOTUS.

That's impossible since you can never get to Court (because you are detained forever without due process).

Even if you could, the government has Sovereign Immunity to protect itself from being sued.

It is people who are being detained who have others ask the Court for a writ of habeas corpus which demands a prisoner be brought before the Court.

btw, a writ of habeas corpus and a law suit against the Government? wtf does one have to do with the other?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Tell it to SCOTUS.

2nd just may be one of the nuttiest fruit loops to grace these boards. I'll go out on a limb and call him a Fruit Cake.

You are entitled to you own opinion.

Also, at least I have my rep on.



Thanks for the free bump!

I don't? Who knew?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What two people accused the 16 year old of Treason?

collateral damage.

No on targeted a 16 yr old boy

 

[Ernie S.]

Tell it to SCOTUS.

2nd just may be one of the nuttiest fruit loops to grace these boards. I'll go out on a limb and call him a Fruit Cake.

Coming from you, I'd consider that a compliment.

 

[Agit8r]

Habeus Corpus was restored in January 2009

 

[Clementine]

I think our constitution is getting the same respect as our immigration laws these days.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Tell it to SCOTUS.

2nd just may be one of the nuttiest fruit loops to grace these boards. I'll go out on a limb and call him a Fruit Cake.

Coming from you, I'd consider that a compliment.

Ernestine.