Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Habeas Corpus is an ancient common law prerogative writ - a legal procedure to which you have an undeniable right. It is an extraordinary remedy at law. Upon proper application, or even on naked knowledge alone, a court is empowered, and is duty bound, to issue the Extraordinary Writ of Habeas Corpus commanding one who is restraining liberty to forthwith produce before the court the person who is in custody and to show cause why the liberty of that person is being restrained.
Absent a sufficient showing for a proper restraint of liberty, the court is duty bound to order the restraint eliminated and the person discharged. Habeas Corpus is fundamental to American and all other English common law derivative systems of jurisprudence. It is the ultimate lawful and peaceable remedy for adjudicating the providence of liberty’s restraint. Since the history of Habeas Corpus is predominately English we must visit that history to gain understanding of American use of Habeas Corpus.
I want to know how a joke about Obama wanting to read terrorists their rights morphed into "mocking" the Constitution and Habeus Corpus? Had Palin/Giuliani joked about writs of habeus corpus, maybe it would make more sense.
I mean, I understand the rhetorical strategy.... but going on the literality of what was said, and the ensuing "chastisement" by Obama about "those people".... it's a little forced and fake.
If you truly believe that, you are in total denial of your right to protect yourself, your family, and your property. Take away the right to bear arms, and what do you have? Gun prohibition.
Should everyone be allowed to buy cruise missiles? After all, those fall under the category of "arms".
ERRRR... sorry, but members of your own party (those with integrity) were dismayed with Obama's flip-flop, and chastised him for it. Don't make excuses. He clearly voted "with" Bush on this issue!
And what party would that be?
I don't have to make excuses for the Senator. What I do care about is whether a legislator knows and understands how and when to make the proper compromises in order to get a piece of legislation passed that protects the integrity of what he was defending, and whether he can explain with sufficient grounds the reason for the compromise, and the process by which it was achieved.
I find this much more preferable than a Senator who will ignore a particularly important piece of legislation for the sake of his ego and refuse to either compromise or show up to vote when lives are at stake and affected by the decision.
Not every right contained in the Constitution is inalienable. For example there is no inalienable right to a jury trial. That's one method to arrive at a verdict but not the only one. When Jefferson wrote about inalienable rights in the Declaration he was referencing God-given rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The others are more in the nature of civil rights, that is, government-created rights.
The government does not create our rights. It is the defender of the rights of the citizens. The reason the right of Habeaus Corpus must be guarded is that there is a growing sense that the government controls us, when in fact, we are in charge of the government, lazy as we are to demand the accountability. The writ is "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action." Habeas Corpus Defined and Explained. It does not free anyone who is lawfully being held, it does not exonerate wrong doers. It ensures that each of us is safe from wrongful captivity by the state. Ask those who suffered under the rules of the Soviet Union, how important Habeaus Corpus is. Too often do I hear the phrase, well if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, but in fact you do not know day to day what might be deemed to be a terrorist act and you can lose everything in a simple misunderstanding.
Yes, I want the prisoners brought to trial, convicted and held. If we have evidence against these terrorists, then they should easily be convicted and sentenced.
I mean, I understand the rhetorical strategy.... but going on the literality of what was said, and the ensuing "chastisement" by Obama about "those people".... it's a little forced and fake.
Ah, I get it...they said it, they just didn't really mean it. It was just a crowd pleaser, just to rally the base, get a roar from the crowd....the speech was off the cuff, it wasn't written...just slipped in there.
I want to know how a joke about Obama wanting to read terrorists their rights morphed into "mocking" the Constitution and Habeus Corpus? Had Palin/Giuliani joked about writs of habeus corpus, maybe it would make more sense.
I mean, I understand the rhetorical strategy.... but going on the literality of what was said, and the ensuing "chastisement" by Obama about "those people".... it's a little forced and fake.
Are you saying Gov Palin and John McCain can just make stuff up that is not really true and still be considered honorable Maverick's? Free for all!!!
I find this much more preferable than a Senator who will ignore a particularly important piece of legislation for the sake of his ego and refuse to either compromise or show up to vote when lives are at stake and affected by the decision.
Really? You're REALLY going there when you're guy is the king of "Present" votes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
Ah, I get it...they said it, they just didn't really mean it. It was just a crowd pleaser, just to rally the base, get a roar from the crowd....the speech was off the cuff, it wasn't written...just slipped in there.
I think you're missing the point. You're construing one line with Obama's interpretation of said line.
If Mr. Constitutional Scholar's tenuous "interpretation" of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act is any indication, however, there's a real good reason why he never PRACTICED Constitutional law!
OBAMA's gun control position does prohibit some guns. Further it restricts how many someone can buy and other government interference.
Funny, OBAMA didn't want to provide babies born alive with a single bit of medical assistance or comfort saying it was a precursor to repeal of Roe V Wade.
What a Phony.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
