Can Habeas Corpus be Annulled by recalling or rescinding?

Question

Ive reposted due to self elected experts assuming they know.

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?
Well i see a few smart arses have tried and failed to answer, keep it coming guys


I repeat for those that don't comprehend English section 39 is directly related to habeas corpus.

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.

silkieladyinthecity knows her stuff

HABEAS CORPUS IS FIXED!

OTHERWISE - LOVE YOUR CHAINS - DUMB SLAVES.

Learn the meaning of "antibellum" before you even try to answer this question.

Answer 1

Exceptional question and you're right on target we were a British colony . I think the Constitution counter acts this , we are know a country unto Ourselves.

Answer 2

First of all, in regards to your first sentence:

>Given the USA is still "to date" a "colony" of Britain, subject to >the laws of the UK,

I don't know how you come to this conclusion, but there have been two wars faught between the two countries to prove that this is no longer the case. The British Crown, the US Constitution, and the UN all recognize the US as an independent nation. Two of those three have recognized it as such for over 200 years.

Answer 3

Umm... we're not subject to British Law anymore. The British Government Recognized the United States government as a separate country a LONG time ago. Reconizing an ambassador from a country as an ambassador means they they are a separate nation and the government has to respect that. Th UK recognized John Adams as the US Ambassador to Great Britain. By doing that, the UK admitted that America was a separate nation. Therefore this has absolutly no bearing on the current debates. We are not a colony anymore ;-)

But don't worry, the Constitution Bans it over here.

Answer 4

I know I shouldn't diginify this nonsense with an answer, but since many people will see this without knowing what "antebellum" means I thought I could clarify. Antebellum is latin for "before the war".

I suppose from the English perspective we would be a colony in antebellum and therefore in violation of English law. However, seeing as we don't give a horse's-**** what the "crown" has to say it guess it doesn't really matter, does it? Besides, I was under the impression that Blair was OUR lap-dog, no?

Answer 5

Treaty of Paris (1783), Article One:

"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof"

British law has no power over the US, by order of the British Crown.

Answer 6

The suited courtroom overruled the argument that the form or rights of habeas corpus do no longer save on with in Rasul v. Bush. Civil rights despite the fact that, may well be suspended in time of conflict, and Habeas corpus pertains to criminal complaints and to no longer "enemy warring events," who may well be detained for the period of "the conflict" See Padilla. Al Mari grew to become into no longer an enemy combatant because of the fact he grew to become into caught interior the U. S. and by no skill certainly fought. In Al Mari v. Wright The courtroom held that "because of the fact Congress has no longer empowered the President to subject civilian alien terrorists interior america to indefinite militia detention... we want no longer, and don't, verify despite if this sort of grant of authority could violate the form. somewhat, we basically carry that the form would not grant the President performing on my own with this authority". The regulation now delivers adequate alleviation for detainees and till all provisions for judicial assessment are exhausted, the communicate isn't ripe for suited courtroom assessment. yet see Justices Stevens and Kennedy's dissent in Boumedienne. interesting subject, i'm going to ought to learn it extra later.

Answer 7

Even if some treaty left us as a colony of britain, it is quite clear that you answer to us now. Not that i have any problem with your writs. Nor like the loss of freedom. Anyone can renig on anything only the consequences will eventually stop them.