Re: "In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S. Attorney General..."

Don Gabacho wrote:

> [Typical Hispanic Reasoning]:

>

> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=11361

>

> Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus

> Report; Posted on: 2007-01-20

>

>

> Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First

> Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to worship

> as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully

>

>

> By Robert Parry

>

>

> In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S.

> Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S.

> Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every

> American.

>

>

> Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary

> Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution

> doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when

> the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.

>

>

> "There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a

> prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.

>

>

> Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican,

> stammering.

>

>

> "Wait a minute," Specter interjected. "The Constitution says you can't

> take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that

> mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's a rebellion or

> invasion?"

>

>

> Gonzales continued, "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in

> the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of

> habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not

> be suspended" except in cases of rebellion or invasion.

>

>

> "You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,"

> Specter said.

>

>

> While Gonzales's statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it,

> his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other

> fundamental rights that Americans hold dear also don't exist because

> the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative.

>

>

> For instance, the First Amendment declares that "Congress shall make

> no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

> free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the

> press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to

> petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

>

>

> Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First

> Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to worship

> as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The

> amendment simply bars the government, i.e. Congress, from passing

> laws that would impinge on these rights.

>

>

> Similarly, Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states that "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."

>

>

> The clear meaning of the clause, as interpreted for more than two

> centuries, is that the Founders recognized the long-established

> English law principle of habeas corpus, which guarantees people the

> right of due process, such as formal charges and a fair trial.

>

>

> Full article

> http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011807.html

>

>

> Says a V-Reader: Bush's affirmative action appointment of Gonzales was

> supposed to bring new approaches to reflect the changing face of

> America and its culture. Gonzales comes from a culture that has formed

> a legal system seen across Latin America: what the jefe or the junta

> say is the law....

Gonzales should confine his legal practice to defending DUI's,

shoplifters, the

usual barrio brushes with the law.

ted

<theodoric3@lycos.com> wrote in message

news:1169559956.285301.215000@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>

> Don Gabacho wrote:

> > [Typical Hispanic Reasoning]:

> >

> > http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=11361

> >

> > Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus

> > Report; Posted on: 2007-01-20

> >

> >

> > Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First

> > Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to worship

> > as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully

> >

> >

> > By Robert Parry

> >

> >

> > In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S.

> > Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S.

> > Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every

> > American.

> >

> >

> > Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary

> > Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution

> > doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when

> > the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.

> >

> >

> > "There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a

> > prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.

> >

> >

> > Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican,

> > stammering.

> >

> >

> > "Wait a minute," Specter interjected. "The Constitution says you can't

> > take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that

> > mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's a rebellion or

> > invasion?"

> >

> >

> > Gonzales continued, "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in

> > the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of

> > habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not

> > be suspended" except in cases of rebellion or invasion.

> >

> >

> > "You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,"

> > Specter said.

> >

> >

> > While Gonzales's statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it,

> > his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other

> > fundamental rights that Americans hold dear also don't exist because

> > the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative.

> >

> >

> > For instance, the First Amendment declares that "Congress shall make

> > no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

> > free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the

> > press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to

> > petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

> >

> >

> > Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First

> > Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to worship

> > as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The

> > amendment simply bars the government, i.e. Congress, from passing

> > laws that would impinge on these rights.

> >

> >

> > Similarly, Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states that "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."

> >

> >

> > The clear meaning of the clause, as interpreted for more than two

> > centuries, is that the Founders recognized the long-established

> > English law principle of habeas corpus, which guarantees people the

> > right of due process, such as formal charges and a fair trial.

> >

> >

> > Full article

> > http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011807.html

> >

> >

> > Says a V-Reader: Bush's affirmative action appointment of Gonzales was

> > supposed to bring new approaches to reflect the changing face of

> > America and its culture. Gonzales comes from a culture that has formed

> > a legal system seen across Latin America: what the jefe or the junta

> > say is the law....

>

> Gonzales should confine his legal practice to defending DUI's,

> shoplifters, the

> usual barrio brushes with the law.

>

> ted

>

And one wonders why so many people now say we have near fascism form of

government! With Attorney General of USA talking like that, it's convincing.

But it's about over now. The next election will bring more Democrats to the

Senate and probably more to the House also, and the WH.

What's sad is to see the Republican party being taken over by these neocons

extremists and destroy or cripple this once good party.

Titix wrote:

> <theodoric3@lycos.com> wrote in message

> news:1169559956.285301.215000@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>> Don Gabacho wrote:

>>> [Typical Hispanic Reasoning]:

>>>

>>> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=11361

>>>

>>> Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus

>>> Report; Posted on: 2007-01-20

>>>

>>>

>>> Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First

>>> Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to worship

>>> as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully

>>>

>>>

>>> By Robert Parry

>>>

>>>

>>> In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S.

>>> Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S.

>>> Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every

>>> American.

>>>

>>>

>>> Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary

>>> Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution

>>> doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when

>>> the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.

>>>

>>>

>>> "There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a

>>> prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.

>>>

>>>

>>> Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican,

>>> stammering.

>>>

>>>

>>> "Wait a minute," Specter interjected. "The Constitution says you can't

>>> take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that

>>> mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's a rebellion or

>>> invasion?"

>>>

>>>

>>> Gonzales continued, "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in

>>> the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of

>>> habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not

>>> be suspended" except in cases of rebellion or invasion.

>>>

>>>

>>> "You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,"

>>> Specter said.

>>>

>>>

>>> While Gonzales's statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it,

>>> his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other

>>> fundamental rights that Americans hold dear also don't exist because

>>> the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative.

>>>

>>>

>>> For instance, the First Amendment declares that "Congress shall make

>>> no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

>>> free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the

>>> press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to

>>> petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

>>>

>>>

>>> Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First

>>> Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to worship

>>> as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The

>>> amendment simply bars the government, i.e. Congress, from passing

>>> laws that would impinge on these rights.

>>>

>>>

>>> Similarly, Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states that "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."

>>>

>>>

>>> The clear meaning of the clause, as interpreted for more than two

>>> centuries, is that the Founders recognized the long-established

>>> English law principle of habeas corpus, which guarantees people the

>>> right of due process, such as formal charges and a fair trial.

>>>

>>>

>>> Full article

>>> http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011807.html

>>>

>>>

>>> Says a V-Reader: Bush's affirmative action appointment of Gonzales was

>>> supposed to bring new approaches to reflect the changing face of

>>> America and its culture. Gonzales comes from a culture that has formed

>>> a legal system seen across Latin America: what the jefe or the junta

>>> say is the law....

>> Gonzales should confine his legal practice to defending DUI's,

>> shoplifters, the

>> usual barrio brushes with the law.

>>

>> ted

>>

> And one wonders why so many people now say we have near fascism form of

> government! With Attorney General of USA talking like that, it's convincing.

> But it's about over now. The next election will bring more Democrats to the

> Senate and probably more to the House also, and the WH.

>

> What's sad is to see the Republican party being taken over by these neocons

> extremists and destroy or cripple this once good party.

What makes you think the Democrats will make any changes to the fascist

rules and laws set in place by the Republicans?

I'd bet that not one of Bush's anti-freedom laws gets repealed, even if

the Democrats hold senate, house, and presidency.

Cheers,

Bama Brian

Libertarian

>

>

>

Bama Brian wrote:

> Titix wrote:

>> <theodoric3@lycos.com> wrote in message

>> news:1169559956.285301.215000@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>>> Don Gabacho wrote:

>>>> [Typical Hispanic Reasoning]:

>>>>

>>>> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=11361

>>>>

>>>> Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus

>>>> Report; Posted on: 2007-01-20

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First

>>>> Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to worship

>>>> as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> By Robert Parry

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S.

>>>> Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S.

>>>> Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every

>>>> American.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary

>>>> Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution

>>>> doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when

>>>> the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> "There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a

>>>> prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican,

>>>> stammering.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> "Wait a minute," Specter interjected. "The Constitution says you can't

>>>> take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that

>>>> mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's a rebellion or

>>>> invasion?"

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Gonzales continued, "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in

>>>> the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of

>>>> habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not

>>>> be suspended" except in cases of rebellion or invasion.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> "You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,"

>>>> Specter said.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> While Gonzales's statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it,

>>>> his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other

>>>> fundamental rights that Americans hold dear also don't exist because

>>>> the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> For instance, the First Amendment declares that "Congress shall make

>>>> no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

>>>> free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the

>>>> press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to

>>>> petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First

>>>> Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to worship

>>>> as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The

>>>> amendment simply bars the government, i.e. Congress, from passing

>>>> laws that would impinge on these rights.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Similarly, Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states that "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."

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> The clear meaning of the clause, as interpreted for more than two

>>>> centuries, is that the Founders recognized the long-established

>>>> English law principle of habeas corpus, which guarantees people the

>>>> right of due process, such as formal charges and a fair trial.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Full article

>>>> http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011807.html

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Says a V-Reader: Bush's affirmative action appointment of Gonzales was

>>>> supposed to bring new approaches to reflect the changing face of

>>>> America and its culture. Gonzales comes from a culture that has formed

>>>> a legal system seen across Latin America: what the jefe or the junta

>>>> say is the law....

>>> Gonzales should confine his legal practice to defending DUI's,

>>> shoplifters, the

>>> usual barrio brushes with the law.

>>>

>>> ted

>>>

>> And one wonders why so many people now say we have near fascism form of

>> government! With Attorney General of USA talking like that, it's

>> convincing.

>> But it's about over now. The next election will bring more Democrats

>> to the

>> Senate and probably more to the House also, and the WH.

>>

>> What's sad is to see the Republican party being taken over by these

>> neocons

>> extremists and destroy or cripple this once good party.

>

> What makes you think the Democrats will make any changes to the

> fascist rules and laws set in place by the Republicans?

>

> I'd bet that not one of Bush's anti-freedom laws gets repealed, even

> if the Democrats hold senate, house, and presidency.

>

> Cheers,

> Bama Brian

> Libertarian

>

then you'd lose your hard-earned money. Under threat of Democratic

court action, Bush recently ended his warrantless wiretapping of Americans.

>>

>>

>>

--

fas-cism (fash'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.

-- The American Heritage Dictionary

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

------George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999

gringo wrote:

> Bama Brian wrote:

>> Titix wrote:

>>> <theodoric3@lycos.com> wrote in message

>>> news:1169559956.285301.215000@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>>>> Don Gabacho wrote:

>>>>> [Typical Hispanic Reasoning]:

>>>>>

>>>>> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=11361

>>>>>

>>>>> Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus

>>>>> Report; Posted on: 2007-01-20

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First

>>>>> Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to worship

>>>>> as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> By Robert Parry

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S.

>>>>> Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S.

>>>>> Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every

>>>>> American.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary

>>>>> Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution

>>>>> doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when

>>>>> the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> "There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a

>>>>> prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican,

>>>>> stammering.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> "Wait a minute," Specter interjected. "The Constitution says you can't

>>>>> take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that

>>>>> mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's a rebellion or

>>>>> invasion?"

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Gonzales continued, "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in

>>>>> the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of

>>>>> habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not

>>>>> be suspended" except in cases of rebellion or invasion.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> "You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,"

>>>>> Specter said.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> While Gonzales's statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it,

>>>>> his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other

>>>>> fundamental rights that Americans hold dear also don't exist because

>>>>> the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> For instance, the First Amendment declares that "Congress shall make

>>>>> no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

>>>>> free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the

>>>>> press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to

>>>>> petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First

>>>>> Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to worship

>>>>> as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The

>>>>> amendment simply bars the government, i.e. Congress, from passing

>>>>> laws that would impinge on these rights.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Similarly, Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states that "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."

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> The clear meaning of the clause, as interpreted for more than two

>>>>> centuries, is that the Founders recognized the long-established

>>>>> English law principle of habeas corpus, which guarantees people the

>>>>> right of due process, such as formal charges and a fair trial.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Full article

>>>>> http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011807.html

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Says a V-Reader: Bush's affirmative action appointment of Gonzales was

>>>>> supposed to bring new approaches to reflect the changing face of

>>>>> America and its culture. Gonzales comes from a culture that has formed

>>>>> a legal system seen across Latin America: what the jefe or the junta

>>>>> say is the law....

>>>> Gonzales should confine his legal practice to defending DUI's,

>>>> shoplifters, the

>>>> usual barrio brushes with the law.

>>>>

>>>> ted

>>>>

>>> And one wonders why so many people now say we have near fascism form of

>>> government! With Attorney General of USA talking like that, it's

>>> convincing.

>>> But it's about over now. The next election will bring more Democrats

>>> to the

>>> Senate and probably more to the House also, and the WH.

>>>

>>> What's sad is to see the Republican party being taken over by these

>>> neocons

>>> extremists and destroy or cripple this once good party.

>>

>> What makes you think the Democrats will make any changes to the

>> fascist rules and laws set in place by the Republicans?

>>

>> I'd bet that not one of Bush's anti-freedom laws gets repealed, even

>> if the Democrats hold senate, house, and presidency.

>>

>> Cheers,

>> Bama Brian

>> Libertarian

>>

>

>

> then you'd lose your hard-earned money. Under threat of Democratic

> court action, Bush recently ended his warrantless wiretapping of Americans.

It was Judge Anna Diggs Taylor who originally ruled Bush's wiretapping

to be illegal, back in August of '06. But Bush kept right on a'tappin'

until the Demos made an issue of it.

Still, there was no law passed to allow Bush to do it - he just did it

in violation of existing law.

All of those so-called anti-terror laws, such as the Patriot Act, the

Military Commissions Act, and so on will still be laws no matter which

party holds the White House. The Demos won't repeal a single

anti-freedom law; they'll just add to them.

So thanks for playing, gringo. But my original statement still stands.

Cheers,

Bama Brian

Libertarian

On Jan 23, 7:45 am, theodor...@lycos.com wrote:

> Don Gabacho wrote:

> > [Typical Hispanic Reasoning]:

>

> >http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=11361

>

> > Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus

> > Report; Posted on: 2007-01-20

>

> > Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First

> > Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to worship

> > as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully

>

> > By Robert Parry

>

> > In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S.

> > Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S.

> > Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every

> > American.

>

> > Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary

> > Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution

> > doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when

> > the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.

>

> > "There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a

> > prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.

>

> > Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican,

> > stammering.

>

> > "Wait a minute," Specter interjected. "The Constitution says you can't

> > take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that

> > mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's a rebellion or

> > invasion?"

>

> > Gonzales continued, "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in

> > the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of

> > habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not

> > be suspended" except in cases of rebellion or invasion.

>

> > "You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,"

> > Specter said.

>

> > While Gonzales's statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it,

> > his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other

> > fundamental rights that Americans hold dear also don't exist because

> > the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative.

>

> > For instance, the First Amendment declares that "Congress shall make

> > no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

> > free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the

> > press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to

> > petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

>

> > Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First

> > Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to worship

> > as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The

> > amendment simply bars the government, i.e. Congress, from passing

> > laws that would impinge on these rights.

>

> > Similarly, Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states that "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."

>

> > The clear meaning of the clause, as interpreted for more than two

> > centuries, is that the Founders recognized the long-established

> > English law principle of habeas corpus, which guarantees people the

> > right of due process, such as formal charges and a fair trial.

>

> > Full article

> >http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011807.html

>

> > Says a V-Reader: Bush's affirmative action appointment of Gonzales was

> > supposed to bring new approaches to reflect the changing face of

> > America and its culture. Gonzales comes from a culture that has formed

> > a legal system seen across Latin America: what the jefe or the junta

> > say is the law....Gonzales should confine his legal practice to defending DUI's,

> shoplifters, the

> usual barrio brushes with the law.

>

> ted- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Gonzales gives wetbacks a bad name. We do not need Mexican style

Justice in the United States. Couldn't he persuaded to work for one of

the two current Mexican Presidents?