Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has repeatedly stated the president has the inherent authority to essentially dispose of the Constitution decree in any "national emergency" type situation. I’ve often wondered how Gonzales and the other neocon members of the Bush administration could justify their logic against the plain words of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But thanks to testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on January 18, I now think I have the answer. And it’s straight from "The Twilight Zone."
Responding to a question from Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Gonzales said that there is no right to habeas corpus (i.e., the right of a detained person to challenge his or her confinement before a court). Instead, the Constitution merely says when habeas corpus can be suspended (in cases of rebellion or invasion)
Now I get it! Gonzales and the neocons believe that the fundamental rights that Americans think the Constitution or the Bill of Rights gives them don’t really exist, because the Constitution often spells them out in the form of a prohibition against the government eliminating them.
And, since the neocons believe that the government can sweep these rights under a rug in any "emergency type situation" exclusively determined by the president, the prohibitions don’t apply, either.
Let’s take a look at how some of our other "rights" under the U.S. Constitution might apply:
- The First Amendment declares that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” But in the Gonzales twilight zone, what this really means is that there is no Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, a free press or to assemble peacefully.
- The Second Amendment declares that, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Obviously, what Gonzales thinks this really means is that there is no Constitutional right to bear arms.
- The Fourth Amendment states that, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." It’s perfectly clear that in Gonzales’ mind, there’s no Constitutional right to "reasonable" searches and seizures.
In "The Twilight Zone" series, creator Rod Serling brilliantly captured the bewilderment of the characters he created as they found some of their most fundamental assumptions challenged. The series was of course science fiction, but the Gonzales Twilight Zone—where white is black and black is white—is quite real.
America’s highest legal official is stating that words mean the opposite of what they really state. If that’s not a terrifying legal development, I don’t know what is. And unless Congress has the courage to challenge this interpretation, Bush, Gonzoles and the neocons just might get away with it.
