Difference between revisions of "Talk:Habeas corpus"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→No expressed grant: I was just removing some of the exaggerated language of the text before) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
RSchlafly, what you are basically implying in your last edit is that the United States has no legally enforceable habeas corpus protection for its citizens. Um...[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:34, 16 May 2007 (EDT) | RSchlafly, what you are basically implying in your last edit is that the United States has no legally enforceable habeas corpus protection for its citizens. Um...[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:34, 16 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : No, I am not saying that. I was just removing some of the exaggerated language of the text before. It said that the "Constitution enshrines the right" when it really just mentions it indirectly. It said " highly specified conditions" when the Const. just says "unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it". Then it has some misleading statements about what the "Founders intended". I was just trimming down to actual facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 15:40, May 16, 2007
No expressed grant
We've had a couple of reverts, and I still don't see the disagreement between Gonzales and the Supreme Court. Can someone supply the quotes that show the disagreement? RSchlafly 20:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- AmesG, if Gonzales disagrees with Scalia, then just quote it. I don't see it. RSchlafly 17:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
RSchlafly, what you are basically implying in your last edit is that the United States has no legally enforceable habeas corpus protection for its citizens. Um...AlanE 02:34, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
- No, I am not saying that. I was just removing some of the exaggerated language of the text before. It said that the "Constitution enshrines the right" when it really just mentions it indirectly. It said " highly specified conditions" when the Const. just says "unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it". Then it has some misleading statements about what the "Founders intended". I was just trimming down to actual facts. RSchlafly 11:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT)