By Gonzales' reasoning, you have NO rights that the constitution does not specifically [View All]

say you have. I believe that it is the other way around. You have all rights that are not specifically denied by the constitution or by law (state, federal, etc.). Am I right or is he? I believe that Scalia has also maintained that we DO NOT have rights that the constitution does not say we have. Doesn't this claim by the Administration create a constitutional crisis?

Here is Gonzales' reasoning:

Edited on Thu Jan-18-07 10:01 AM by underpants
verbatim I am transcribing this from the video
ON EDIT- corrected typo

Gonzo just before this exchange "Just because they talked about the Constitutional right to habeas corpus doesn't mean the decision was about the Constitutional right to habeas corpus"


"There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution, there is a prohibition against taking it away"


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?"

Gonzo: "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"

Specter: "You may treading on your interdiction of violating common sense"