Did He Really Say That?
If he did, there is indeed no bottom to this Administration’s sophistry. So here’s something to wonder about. Amendment IV to the US Constitution says “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” It doesn’t explicitly say only the courts can issue warrants. Nor does Article III say “only courts can issue warrants” in so many words. The word warrant does not appear in the main text of the constitution. I assume this is because we inherited a common-law practice from England that nobody thought needed to be written down. But I don’t see why the Gonzales-Yoo school would not declare at some point that the executive branch can issue “warrants” too. Presto! Instant Fourth Amendment compliance! Of a kind.
UPDATE: Via Nell in comments, yup. He really said it.
Comment by Ashley —
January 19, 2007 @ 12:49 am
Might not be such a bad conclusion. The Tenth Amendment could then be interpreted to mean anyone can issue warrants, say against officers of the government. I’ve got rough drafts starting with Gozales.
Comment by ajay —
January 19, 2007 @ 5:19 am
Technically, Gonzalez could have argued, the constitution only forbids the suspension of the right of habeas corpus. If you instead abolish it permanently, you’re fine! In fact, it only becomes retroactively unconstitutional if someone tries to reinstate it.
Comment by diana —
January 19, 2007 @ 10:20 am
“If he did, there is indeed no bottom to this Administration’s sophistry.”
Yes! Just as I said in answer to my own question (what did you learn from the war?); “You can never be too cynical.”
And no, there is no end to their lying, sophistry, bullshit, what have you.
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
January 19, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
My response to that quote was laughter. If I had an NPC in a roleplaying game say something like that, my players would accuse me of drawing cartoon villains, and yet — here it is, real!
Comment by Thoreau —
January 19, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
You know, the First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” but it doesn’t say that the
ExecutiveDecider can’t establish a state religion.Shit, I hope Gonzales doesn’t read this. We might find ourselves required to convert to Dubyaism.
Comment by Jim Henley —
January 19, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
Neel et al, I figured it out Gonzales’s constitutional logic. There is no universal right to habeas corpus. All the constitution says that if the US ever DOES confer a right of habeas corpus, then it can’t be suspended unless that stuff in Amendment IV happens. Until such time, no problem!
Comment by dbomp —
January 19, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
And to think that he was being taken seriously as a possible nominee for the Supremes when Justice O’Connor retired.
Comment by Nell —
January 20, 2007 @ 10:24 am
And he did say it.
(Though damned if I can make any sense of what Specter says next — “treading on your interdiction”???)
Trackback by Political Animal —
January 20, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
Beyond Sophistry…
BEYOND SOPHISTRY….Every once in a while I fail to blog about some remark or other because it seems like every blog in the world has already posted about it. But sometimes I forget that not everyone who reads this blog……
Comment by Ginger Yellow —
January 22, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Get with the programme, Jim. The administration has already argued, in defence of its illegal wiretapping, that the “unreasonable searches and seizures” part of the amendment should be read separately from the “no warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause” part. In other words, a warrantless or sub-probable cause search is not necessarily unconstitutional. It’s only if a warrant is issued that it must be upon probable cause.