2,732
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: − +
Read Hamdi, Schalfly. Gonzalez says there's no express grant, and Scalia in the dissent says there is an express grant. That's disagreement. Did I mention that SCALIA said that?
The United States Constitution enshrines the right in Article I, Section 9, the [[Suspension Clause]], which outlines under which highly specified conditions the Writ may be suspended.<ref>U.S. Const., Art I, Sec. 9</ref> While the Writ is not specifically granted to United States citizens, the Founders intended, and the Supreme Court agrees, that it was not explicitly mentioned because it was not perceived as necessary, the Writ being so fundamental to even [[British]] government at the time of the Founding.<ref>See Hamdi v. Rumsfield, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) Scalia, J., concurring.</ref>
The United States Constitution enshrines the right in Article I, Section 9, the [[Suspension Clause]], which outlines under which highly specified conditions the Writ may be suspended.<ref>U.S. Const., Art I, Sec. 9</ref> While the Writ is not specifically granted to United States citizens, the Founders intended, and the Supreme Court agrees, that it was not explicitly mentioned because it was not perceived as necessary, the Writ being so fundamental to even [[British]] government at the time of the Founding.<ref>See Hamdi v. Rumsfield, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) Scalia, J., concurring.</ref>
[[United States]] [[Attorney General]] [[Alberto Gonzales]] has pointed out that there is no expressed grant of ''habeas corpus'' in the [[Constitution]].<ref>http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml</ref>
[[United States]] [[Attorney General]] [[Alberto Gonzalez]] disagrees with the Supreme Court on this issue, believing that there is no expressed grant of ''habeas corpus'' in the [[Constitution]].<ref>http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml</ref>
== References ==
== References ==
<references/>
<references/>
[[Category:Latin Legal Terms]]
[[Category:Latin Legal Terms]]