Fixing Things

The House and Senate have introduced versions of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.00185:. Except for the one Republican co-sponser, the Senate version was voted upon along party lines. From the same Republican party that voted against a bill some years back that was a modern-day restatement of the Bill of Rights. Of course, the Democrats aren't much better and traditionally have been very willing to hold a gun to your head and demand you hand over your wallet so they can give your money to their political constituents. Oh, wait, the Republicans seem to have surpassed the Dems even on this front! What a time we live in.

Anyway, I would go a step further. Attorney General Gonzalez had the gumption in January of this year to state that the right to a Habeas Corpus petition/hearing is not expressly in the Constitution. Well, in a sense he is correct, but not in any meaningful way. The Constitution's "Suspension Clause" states that the right to Habeas Corpus may not be taken away except under a few circumstances. In other words, the framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized the pre-existing body of English Common Law. Of course, reviewing nearly 800 years of cases dealing with the right of Habeas Corpus is too tedious a task for those in the Administration. My suggestion is that we make it simple for them, and in such a way as to leave no doubt.

In the section dealing with Impeachment, the Constitution states,

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." (Quoted from the website http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2)

Now, it does not expressly state that a concurrence of three-quarters of the members present is also sufficient for conviction. It does not expressly state that that a conviction requires a vote of two-thirds or more. It does not expressly state that a vote of at least two-thirds is required. So, if President Bush were to be impeached and tried in the Senate, and if 80 Senators voted to convict, I imagine Attorney General Gonzalez would be right there arguing that '...the conviction was not valid because the Constitution expressly states that the vote to convict must be two-thirds, which of course means no more and no less than two-thirds".

Of course, with this kind of logic, you could NEVER convict on articles of impeachment if all 100 Senators are present to vote on the conviction because two-thirds of 100 is 66.6666666666, and I do not know how you can have a 0.666 of a Senator (although some of the very, very old ones up there ....never mind).

While I'm at it, I'd suggest fixing a few other things more or less permanently. But how, you ask.

Constitutional Amendments, of course. I am the first person to say that Amendments should not be taken lightly and that the Constitution should be tinkered with only as a last resort. I think we have reached that point. We had a US Citizen arrested within a US State being held indefinitely without charges merely on the whim of the President. We have legally present aliens who have been rounded up and imprisoned indefinitely without charges. We have a Supreme Court and Appellate Courts that, until recently, have shown deference to the Administration on these issues. But the Courts, I think, need something a little more clear and definite than merely sound reason and historical precedent upon which to hang their hats. They need a bright line statement of what the right is, who has the right, and that rose by any other name would smell as sweet....in other words, that merely changing the name of a thing does not change the thing itself so that we don't end up with another mess like "illegal combatant" "illegal enemy combatant" "enemy combatant" and "prisoner of war".

What should Amendments say? Usually, the less they say, the better. I think we'd need at least two; one to deal with Habeas Corpus and one to clarify that the Vice Presidency belongs in the Executive Branch (which is just so stupid that I don't think I'll award points for creativity on that argument).

Perhaps I'll draft some proposed Amendments and float them for input?

damackay