post by Donwhite
The Writ of Habeas corpus.
Also known as "The Great Writ," is a summons addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a
prisoner be brought before the court together with proof of the authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority
to hold that person, or if not, the person should be released from custody.
The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subjects. The writ of
habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary," "common law," or "prerogative writs," historically issued by courts in the name of
the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom.
The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of non-authority. The official who is the
respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner (prisoner).
Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in 1305 during the reign of King Edward I. However other writs were
issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II in the 12th century.
The procedure for the issuing of writs of habeas corpus was first codified by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. A habeas corpus petition could be made by
the prisoner himself or by a third party on his behalf.
On April 27 1861, habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln in Maryland and parts of mid-western states, including southern Indiana
during the American Civil War. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. In the early 1870s, President
Ulysses S. Grant suspended habeas corpus in nine counties in South Carolina, as part of federal civil rights action against the Ku Klux Klan.
The Constitutional basis
for Disputing the Bush Administration’s actions in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
(The Constitutional reference is taken out of order).
Article I, Section 9, Clause 2. 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 I, Section 8. Clause: Congress shall have power to . . .
9.To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court:
10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:
11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:
12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:
13. To provide and maintain a navy:
14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:
18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 2. 3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the
state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the
Congress may by law have directed.
The writers have already covered crimes committed outside the boundaries of the United States, in 1787. We have refused to follow their
Article III. Section 3, Clause 1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies,
giving them aid and comfort. No PERSON shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession
in open court.
Clause 2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason . .
I think the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay would fall under this provision of the 1787 Constitution. Observe that this provision applies to PERSON
which would include all the human inhabitants of the planet Earth.
I Amendment. “ . . the right of the PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances . .
The writers of this Amendment choose the word people where they could as well have used the more restrictive term citizen but the broad and all
inclusive term people. Everyone on our shores has this fundamental right.
IV Amendment. The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their PERSONS, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated . . no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The writers choose carefully their words. Note how the term PEOPLE covers a larger class than the term CITIZENS just as the later use of PERSONS
includes more than CITIZENS.
V Amendment. No PERSON shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . .
nor shall any PERSON be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
It is clear that the writers meant to include MORE than just CITIZENS when they wrote the Fifth Amendment. They made it broader in its scope and said
these privileges belong to anyone in the class of person.
VI Amendment. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to
have the ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL for his defense.
Any PERSON regardless of his place of origin or of his alleged offense against the Constitution of the United States is entitled to the protections
laid out therein. This is not for his benefit, it is for OUR BENEFIT!
XIV Amendment, Section 1. All PERSONS born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of
the United States; nor shall any State deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any PERSON within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The writers knew well the difference between a PERSON and a CITIZEN.
XV Amendment, Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Again, you can see the appropriate use of the term CITIZEN on the matter of voting.
XIX Amendment. Section 1. The right of CITIZENS of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of sex.
And yet another example of the use of the term CITIZEN to illustrate how the terms CITIZEN and PERSON differ in their application.
XXIV Amendment. Section 1. The right of CITIZENS of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for
electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged . . ”
A further example of the proper use of CITIZEN as opposed to the use of PERSON.
XXVI Amendment. The right of CITIZENS of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United
States . .
Yet another example of the proper use of CITIZEN as opposed to the use of PERSON.
[edit on 6/12/2008 by donwhite]