Does this sentence mean anything to conservatives or republicans?

Question

"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." (Article One, section nine of the U.S. Constitution).
We are not labeled as having any kind of "rebellion" or being "invaded". So all arguements to suspend the habeas corpus can be disregarded by looking at the legal standpoint of the issue.
Sorry, I'm just a liberal who respects the Constitution too much to let our government tamper with it.

Answer 1

HR 6166

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h6166_ih.xml#H973B6A9215D84773A60820A156713DD1

Look at sec 7 Habeas Corpus Matters

As much as it erks me to agree with a liberal (HAHA) I have to me honest. This is horrible legislation. It isn't just about enemy combatants, which I agree the Constitution need not extent to enemies or POW, but it can used against legal resident aliens, merely as guilt by association. It is just plain wrong. It flies in the face of our judicial system. It is guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

Answer 2

And I am a conservative who most certainly does respect the Constitution. Not to get too far-off track here, but which sentence in the Constitution guarantees the right to have sex or to have abortions? My favorite Supreme Court Justice is the late Hugo L. Black because he was a liberal who knew how to interpret the Constitution correctly. And maybe he would agree with you on this subject -- habeas corpus. I won't know whether or not you are right unless and until I have heard more about the legislation that is raising the hackles on your neck.

Answer 3

Perhaps your interpretation differs from the lawyers who basically run this country, as to what constitutes rebellion or invasion. What prompted your obviously biased question? Conservatives have always been great defenders of the Constitution and frequently from the assaults of so-called liberals aka Socialists.

Answer 4

Does the term "war" mean anything to you?

The US Constitution does not extend to enemy combatants. We did not extend Constitutional liberties to POWs in any war, and this one is no exception. We also did not extend these rights to any number of enemies of the USA that were quietly "liquidated" by American secret agents over the past 50+ years, by Presidents of both parties. Those liberties generally did not extend to those detained for espionage -- you probably never heard of any of their cases.

The strategy (or "strategerie") of Dubya has been to hold these people for as long as possible. Their court cases have been heard, and the US Congress has responded in most cases to support their detention. To date, the SCOTUS has not ruled against itself, and has supported the current course. So, by definition, if the SCOTUS and the US Congress says that Article 1, Sec 9 is not being violated, then it is not being violated.

Answer 5

They are taking the clause public saytey to the most extreme

Answer 6

Hmmm, reminds me of the Alien and Sedition Acts. How soon they forget.

Answer 7

That sentence means a lot to me. I am ashamed that we have sat by and let it happen.

to Pat B...... there was not one soldier in Iraq that died to protect my freedom of speech. That is a pathetic line that you republicans say to justify the deaths of thousands of young Americans for no reason.

Answer 8

It's always the liberals that debate the finer points of the constitution while young boys and girls go march off to war.

you have to realize that these kids make it possible for you to hem and haw, while they die by the thousands in the defense of your free speech and impotent rhetoric...............