...an outdated document?

Read this...


Writ of Habeas Corpus
[Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.]

"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."

Should this rebellion or invasion come from abroad or domestically; should it be the will of the people in response to unjust governance or the imposed solution to a problem conconcted by our selected officials, it will (at the very least) result in the suspension of our fourth and fifth amendment rights, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

While we have a document whose opening statement suggests the American people are well within their rights to oppose tyranny, there is a list of executive orders that have been on the books for decades which give the President full authority to seize all manners of private and publicly held resources, utilities, and means of transportation and egress to essentially "lock down" the entire country and forcibly relocate its citizenry. If one thinks this is unlikely, he should think again. (What is Guantanamo Bay but an internment camp for political prisoners; an off-grid installation designed to strip humans of their basic rights and hold them without charge, representation, or accountability to the centuries-old safeguard of choice for the insurance of personal liberty - Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. Even the U.N. criticizes the United States government for lacking just cause in maintaining the facility and failure to comply with international human rights standards in it's treatment of detainees.)

In a sense, our guaranteed right to freedom and personal autonomy is only as valid as our willingness to wage war in order to keep it secure. So yes, as long as we allow the Bush administration to wipe its collective ass with our Constitution, we allow our freedoms to be eroded through small order change, i.e. the issuance of unconsitutional executive orders, and the appointment of high ranking officials who would hold unitary executive power in the highest regard. It is quite interesting that Justice Samuel Alito should advocate for plenary presidential power, so as to say the chief executive is above the law (or, rather, is the law), when he makes statements to the contrary. It seems that Alito is willing to adhere to the "rule of law" with regard to his own rulings, but does not see fit to hold our chief executive to the same standard. So much for checks and balances. We'll save the viewpoints of attorney general Alberto Gonzales for another discussion.

In any case, our freedoms are clearly at stake, and anyone who believes "a piece of paper" entrusted to the hands of a tyrannical leader will guarantee liberty and justice for all have another thing coming. True freedom lies within the heart of every human, and its spirit cannot be contained by any document; nonetheless, we are responsible to keep freedom alive by ceaselessly upholding the intentions of its framers.

According to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority compels a minority group to obey, but does not make binding on itself.” This statement may also apply to the power elite and those they attempt to rule.

Be Aware. Seek the truth.
J