Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Laws, Behaviors, Etc. that Appear TO YOU to Violate US Constitution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Example #2: Alberto Gonzales

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales

    excerpt #1:

    Controversy over the right to writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution

    On January 18, 2007, Gonzales was invited to speak to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he shocked the committee's ranking member, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, with statements regarding the right of habeas corpus in the United States Constitution.[76] An excerpt of the exchange follows:
    GONZALES: The fact that the Constitution—again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it's never been the case, and I'm not a Supreme—
    SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?[77]
    GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say, "Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas." It doesn't say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —[78]
    (Full transcript and video) Senator Specter was referring to 2nd Clause of Section 9 of Article One of the Constitution of the United States which reads: "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." This passage has been historically interpreted to mean that the right of habeas corpus is inherently established.[79] Gonzales dissents from the consensus view, siding with Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, who said "[a]though the Constitution prohibits Congress from suspending the writ of habeas corpus except during times of rebellion or invasion, this provision was probably meant to keep Congress from suspending the writ and preventing state courts from releasing individuals who were wrongfully imprisoned. The constitutional provision does not create a right to habeas corpus; rather federal statutes [do so]."[80] Additionally, "the Constitutional Convention prevented Congress from obstructing the states courts' ability to grant the writ, but did not try to create a federal constitutional right to habeas corpus".[81] "After all, if the suspension clause itself were an affirmative grant of procedural rights to those held in federal custody, there would have been little need for the first Congress to enact as it did, habeas corpus protections in the Judiciary Act of 1789.[82] Chereminksy's argument has been denied by Justice Paul Stevens in a 2001 opinion in an immigration case involving the issue, where Stevens touches upon what he believes the 'far more sensible view':


    excerpt #2


    In March 2004, the TSP operations, (code-named Stellar Wind,[116]) became the focal point for a dispute between the White House and then-acting-Attorney-General James B. Comey, resulting in a dramatic, late-night meeting between Gonzales, Comey, the bedridden AG John Ashcroft, and other DOJ officials, in a George Washington University Hospital room. According to initial statements by Gonzales, the disagreement was not over TSP; rather, he claimed it concerned other classified intelligence activities which fell under the PSP, which had not been disclosed. However, Comey contended that the incident, (which had culminated in a heated phone conversation following the hospital visit,) had indeed been over the activities comprising the TSP. Through a spokesperson, Gonzales later denied his original assertion that the dispute was over TSP, claiming that he had misspoken. The controversy over these conflicting statements led Senator Charles Schumer to request appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate if Gonzales had committed perjury.[117]
    In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 15, 2007, former Deputy Attorney General Comey was asked to recall the events of the evening of March 10, 2004, when, (at the behest of President Bush,[118][119]) Gonzales and Bush's then-chief-of-staff Andrew H. Card Jr. sought to bypass Comey's refusal to authorize "a particular classified program,"[120] by appealing to the ailing John Ashcroft in a visit to his hospital bedside, as he recovered from surgery for pancreatitis. According to Comey, he had consulted with AG Ashcroft prior to his hospitalization and, (though Ashcroft had previously signed off on the program many times in previous years,[citation needed]) the two of them came to agree that there had arisen legitimate concerns, which interfered with the ability of the Attorney General's office, "to certify (the program's) legality, which was our obligation for the program to be renewed."[120] More than a week later, Comey continued, Ashcroft had become extremely ill and his wife had forbidden any visitors to his hospital room, so when he and the other officials met at his bedside on March 10, he was very concerned about General Ashcroft's ability to think clearly about the issue at hand.
    “ In walked Mr. Gonzales, carrying an envelope, and Mr. Card. They came over and stood by the bed. They greeted the attorney general very briefly, and then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there, to seek his approval...I was very upset. I was angry. I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me.[121] ” Later testimony from Gonzales and others confirmed that Ashcroft did not seem disoriented, but in fact seemed lucid enough to describe to Card and Gonzales, in great detail, the basis of the Department's legal arguments, and even to complain about clearance decisions by the President relative to the TSP. Comey also testified that there was significant dissent among top law enforcement officers over the program, although he did not specifically identify it in the hearing. Moreover, in light of the incident at the hospital, "top Justice Department officials were prepared to resign over it."[121]
    Jack Goldsmith, the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, corroborates many of the details of Comey's Senate testimony regarding the March 10, 2004 hospital room visit, in a preview of his book "The Terror Presidency" which was to be published in Fall 2007. In the September 9, 2007 issue of The New York Times Magazine Jeffrey Rosen reports on an extended interview he had with Goldsmith, who was also in the hospital room that night.[122]
    Last edited by lakechampainer; 10 Mar 16, 19:32.

    Comment


    • #47
      How about this unbelievable possibility.

      DOJ Lynch: Sure, we’ve “discussed” taking legal action against climate deniers

      http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/1...ampaign=buffer

      Comment


      • #48
        Example #3: Obama Administration violations of The Constitution and various laws.

        http://www.committeeforjustice.org/c...administration

        excerpt
        In an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment, the Obama Justice Department ordered criminal investigations of FOX News reporters for doing their jobs during the 2012 election year.

        excerpt
        1. Obama's unconstitutional assault on your Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
          President Obama issued, in one day, 21 separate Executive Orders that attack and undermine your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
          Especially egregious is President Obama's Executive Orders amending the ObamaCare law to allow doctors and hospitals to investigate which patients own a gun. This outrageous Executive Order could allow the federal government to track and monitor law-abiding gun owners simply because they sought medical care.

        excerpt
        DOJ: In violation of 10th Amendment, sued to prevent Arizona from using reasonable measures to discourage illegal immigration within its borders. Arizona has a large number of illegal immigrants, compared to other states, and needs to be able to act to reduce the number." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)


        excerpt
        President Obama established an extra-constitutional top secret "kill list" of people (including Americans) who can be summarily killed on sight – presumably by drones -- without due process. Once on Obama's kill list, an American citizen can be targeted and executed on the opinion of a single government bureaucrat. That's not how our legal system is supposed to work.

        Comment

        Latest Topics

        Collapse

        Working...
        X