Given the USA is still "to date" a "colony" of Britain, subject to the laws of the UK, Removing "Habeas corpus" undermines the foundation of British law ( Magna Charta, clause 39) Neo cronies awarded the title of "Sir" under a Republic confirm this as fact. Therefore making it illegal, unlawful, a felony if not a "treasonable" offense. The USA still remains a colony in antebellum and answerable to the UK Crown. Views please?
2006-12-25 21:51:46 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Well i see a few smart arses have tried and failed to answer, keep it coming guys
2006-12-26 03:45:13 · update #1
I repeat for those that don't comprehend English section 39 is directly related to habeas corpus.
2006-12-26 08:22:26 · update #2
I am amazed at all these so called experts that don't comprehend the severity of the question asked, let alone understand the consequences of a state in antibellum.
2006-12-26 08:56:28 · update #3
What are you smoking!
2006-12-25 21:54:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Habeas Corpus, produce the body. Imprisoning someone without evidence, or without trial is illegal. Even if the United States is still under British law, the Magna Charta clause 39 is not applicable.
Only Clauses 1, 13, 29, and 40 are still in force after the Statute Law (Repeals) Act was passed in 1969.
2006-12-25 22:38:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Do you want to explain "colony in antebellum"?
I am interested in what you are alluding to.
The right of habeas corpus has been suspended or restricted several times during English history, most recently during the 18th and 19th centuries.
The suspension of Habeus Corpus via the Military Comissions Act is obviously a concern.
2006-12-26 06:01:47 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I understand Habeas Corpus, but I am not sure I understand what it is your trying to ask. Are you trying to pose a hypathetical that puts the USA still under British rule, or is that your sound view of the USA? If not a hypothetical than you have been seriously miss lead because USA does not answer to the British Crown, and it has been that way for a very long while now. Hate to be the one of bad news, but we even have our own constitution that solidifies the US as its own country. Exactly what does this have to do with Habeas Corpus anyway from my understanding it is term used quite frequently when studying law?
2006-12-25 22:05:35 · answer #4 · answered by foxy 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Interesting...
If I remember what little Latin 'legalese' I ever had explained for me, "Habeas Corpus" means something along the lines of "produce the body" (prove a crime was committed?) or in contemporary American "English", it's when a defense attourney says PUT UP OR SHUT UP in a slightly more polite manner.
As for removing that, I'm not sure how you would go about telling a lawyer that he can't ask questions or otherwise make a nuisance of himself.
2006-12-25 22:10:49 · answer #5 · answered by Michael H 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the USA never really left British rule.
Kings and Queens do nor give colonies away.
they just hide the control.change the names but not the blood.
People fail to recognize the extent of the power involved ,and the time that it has been there.
.As far as legality is concerned,this is something for the masses those who make the rules rarely obey them.
2007-01-01 08:38:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
initially, with reference on your first sentence: >Given the united states of a remains "to this point" a "colony" of england, difficulty to >the regulations of the united kingdom, i don't be attentive to the way you come again to this end, yet there have been 2 wars faught between the two international locations to instruct that it somewhat is now no longer the case. The British Crown, the U. S. shape, and the UN all know the U. S. as an self sufficient us of a. 2 of those 3 have recognized it as such for over two hundred years.
2016-10-28 09:30:42 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh, yeah, really opposite time or what? "'Opposite practice" for the children -- We're all part of the Raj over here all right, and that gives its rulers the right to inspect, confiscate anthing that is not "approved" of -- right to forfeiture of anyone who slanders the Crown or anyone -- yikes, I'm scared!
2007-01-01 03:38:21 · answer #8 · answered by Chatty82 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Totally not. I don't think it is. I'm totally over Habeas Corpus.
2006-12-25 22:00:44 · answer #9 · answered by jrdncatalano 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You need to read up on the 'Treaty of Paris' - where Great Britain acknowledged that the US is an independent nation.
I take it you slept through your history classes.
2006-12-26 05:05:45 · answer #10 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it violates the 4th amendment. you sound like david icke and you may be right. did you know the bushies are related to the english crown family?
2006-12-25 21:53:28 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋