Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Let's review what rights Bush took away today

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 08:10 PM
Original message
Let's review what rights Bush took away today
<snip>
Fall 2005, Vol. 37, No. 3

"You have the body"
Habeas Corpus Case Records of the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, 1820–1863
By Chris Naylor

Larger Version A trial statement details the charges against Thomas Nailor during a May 17, 1835, riot on Capitol Hill. The statement is signed by U.S. Attorney Francis Scott Key. (Records of District Courts of the United States, RG 21)
On May 17, 1835, Thomas Nailor, a resident of Washington, D.C., and several companions, "with force and arms," started a brawl on Capitol Hill. Francis Scott Key, Attorney of the United States, later recalled that the group then proceeded to riot throughout the streets of Washington for several hours, "to the great terror and disturbance of the good people of the United States." During the riot, Nailor assaulted a George Goldsmith. When Constable John Stephenson arrived on the scene and attempted to control the riot, Nailor resisted arrest and attacked him. In the process, Nailor "did then and there beat wound ill treat" Stephenson.

This was not the first time Nailor had engaged in such conduct. As a result of the May 17 events and his history of violent behavior, Constable Stephenson arrested Nailor and charged him with assault and battery on Goldsmith with intent to kill and with resisting arrest. While in jail awaiting trial, Nailor was denied bail. Knowing that he was entitled to the benefit of bail, Nailor petitioned William Cranch, chief judge of the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, for a writ of habeas corpus.

Originating in English common law, a writ of habeas corpus (Latin for "that you have the body") is a court order from a judge instructing a person who is detaining another to bring the detainee before the court for a specific purpose, usually to explain to the court the reason for holding the detainee. The court then decides whether the detainee should remain in custody or be released. English colonists brought the concept of habeas corpus to the American continent in the 17th century, and the writ of habeas corpus was common in several British colonies by the time of the American Revolution. The framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized the significance of the writ and included it in the body of the Constitution in Article I, section 9, which states:

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.

Many other individual rights were not included in the Constitution until two years following the ratification of the Constitution, when Congress passed the first 10 amendments, commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights. The fact that the writ of habeas corpus was included in the Constitution prior to the passage of the Bill of Rights is a testament to the importance the framers placed on it. The First Federal Congress provided for the use of the writ through an act of September 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 81). Section 14 of that act gave all U.S. courts the power to issue writs of habeas corpus.
<more>

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/fall/habeas-corpus.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Monkeyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think the 5th,8th and 14th Amendments are gone too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. Our Mantra: The Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended
The Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended
The Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended
The Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended
The Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended
The Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-17-06 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. keith already figured that out
every thing is gone but the quartering troops in your home, we no longer have a bill of rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC