Habeaus Corpus

[PANICPASS]

Article 1, Section 9 says: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended... unless when in cases of rebellion the public safety require it.

People have rights, not privileges.

It appears that a writ of habeas corpus protects "the government", not the people. The second sentence reads...unless when in cases of rebellion the PUBLIC (not people) safety require it. Who is the public, but the government.

I didn't know the words "public" and "privilege" were even in the original organic constitution.


The right of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended... unless when in cases of rebellion the people's safety require it.


http://www.budget.net/~ooglah/OOgLAH/VACCI/DOPREJUD.HTM

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/history/Pinacup.htm#1

Article 1, Section 9 states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, . . ." This grants the citizen the freedom from imprisonment or detention without due process. The proviso, "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety require it" indicates the necessity to provide for some contingencies to that security. This proviso carries the possibility for abuse. No document of liberty, however, could possibly proscribe all potential for misuse of those liberties without actually eliminating them in the process. It has been said that "communism is nothing more than democracy with all potential for abuse legislated out". Does "America" toe that party line?

It is important to note that according to the "War and Emergency Powers Act" the United States has legally been under a state of national emergency since its enactment in 1933. The enactment has never been repealed, thus leaving the president with instant powers to avoid the Constitution. Most legal scholars and legislators who have studied the matter concur that the War and Emergency Powers Act has, in reality, suspended the Constitution since the moment the act was signed into law by President Roosevelt. The actual suspension of those constitutional rights awaits only the impetus of any national emergency requiring it.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

Article 1, Section 9 says: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended... unless when in cases of rebellion the public safety require it.

People have rights, not privileges.

It appears that a writ of habeas corpus protects "the government", not the people. The second sentence reads...unless when in cases of rebellion the PUBLIC (not people) safety require it. Who is the public, but the government.

I didn't know the words "public" and "privilege" were even in the original organic constitution.


The right of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended... unless when in cases of rebellion the people's safety require it.


http://www.budget.net/~ooglah/OOgLAH/VACCI/DOPREJUD.HTM

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/history/Pinacup.htm#1

Article 1, Section 9 states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, . . ." This grants the citizen the freedom from imprisonment or detention without due process. The proviso, "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety require it" indicates the necessity to provide for some contingencies to that security. This proviso carries the possibility for abuse. No document of liberty, however, could possibly proscribe all potential for misuse of those liberties without actually eliminating them in the process. It has been said that "communism is nothing more than democracy with all potential for abuse legislated out". Does "America" toe that party line?

It is important to note that according to the "War and Emergency Powers Act" the United States has legally been under a state of national emergency since its enactment in 1933. The enactment has never been repealed, thus leaving the president with instant powers to avoid the Constitution. Most legal scholars and legislators who have studied the matter concur that the War and Emergency Powers Act has, in reality, suspended the Constitution since the moment the act was signed into law by President Roosevelt. The actual suspension of those constitutional rights awaits only the impetus of any national emergency requiring it.

There's been some discussion here regarding the current status of the Powers Act, and the current condition of HJR-192.

Please use the search field to find those threads

[seeker]

Winston in his Seattle Solutions DVD, explains the 'privilege" and it makes sense. The RIGHT of the privilege. And first you exhaust all administrative remedies, and then you seek the writ. One question only, "Is my writ sufficient on it's face?" Nothing else. They will attempt to draw you off on tangents, but stay the course. According to Winston, there needs to be five elements. If they are all present, they must issue the writ. Once issued, you are back to ONE question -- Where is the return of the writ?" And if the Prosecutor shows up, tell him to get out. IT does not involve him. It involves he who is holding the "body", the judge and the one who has brought the writ, usually the prisoner, with someone who acted on his behalf.

They will attempt to make it into a different process, but stay on point -- where is the return of the writ? If it cannot be returned, they must release the body.

Study Winston if you get the chance.

Seeker

[idknow]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

Article 1, Section 9 says: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended... unless when in cases of rebellion the public safety require it.

People have rights, not privileges.
[cut]

or, said another way: Children of God have Rights, everyone else has privileges.