Habeas Corpus: It was never legally denied
Ref Congress cannot restore something that was not legally taken away. [Discussion ]
Ref: HIghly recommended background on Habeas in context of intent of framers: Habeas is not a right that is granted; but the opposite: One that exists always, but can only be taken away for specific reasons. [More evidence Gonzalez isn't a competent attorney and should be disbarred, IMO]
Ref Restore Habeas Project.
[ Sample comment: Ref ( h/t ) ]
Members of Congress are proposing a second bill to reportedly "remedy" the illegal violation of the Constitution. The original bill unconstitutionally, without meeting the express criteria in the Constitution, deprived prisoners of a clearly established right.
Congress refuses to challenge the President, but attempt to repair what has not been legally broken, This is a legal matter which the Supreme Court is well suited to review, if the Congress believes the weather is favorable.
Illegal Usurpation of Non-Delegated Power
Congress has no power to remedy this legal issue using legislative power. This issue is a legal issue which only judicial officers can remedy.
The Second bill, to remedy original violations in first bill, is also unconstitutional -- it illegally usurps judicial power for Congress and Executive to remedy what was an unconstitutional change to the US Constitution, illegally outside the required Amendment process which applies only to government, not we the People.
Separation of Power
Attempting to strike down a bill impermissibly violates the Separation of Powers doctrine.
Congress has no power to say that something -- which Congress did -- is or is not legal. Only a court asserting judicial power, not delegated to Congress, can decide whether the original bill was or was not legal.
Powers Not Delegated Not Recognized
If Congress is going to illegally pass a bill making changes to the Constitution; We the People are not required to recognize the powers which have been illegally usurped to make the Constitution something that is contingent upon Congressional assent. Congress has not been delegated any power to make the words of the Constitution contingent upon the Congressal agreement, approval, or endorsement.
Congress has no power to pretend that the word of the Constitution are a function of whether Congress and the President agree to enforce, assent to, or comply. They have no choice. Conversely, presuming Congress were not to pass this bill, this would not mean the original illegal condition would remain in effect. It cannot as it is unconstitutional.
Usurpation of Power rarely remedied with additional usurpation
Congress is making multiple errors:
1. Illegally depriving a right or privilege, which the Constitution does not permit, except in cases which do not apply;
2. Illegally usurping judicial power to strike down a bill, which We the People did not delegate to the Congress;
3. Impermissibly pretending that restoration of a right is conditional upon Congressional and Presidential approval -- this is only a judicial power which We the People did not delegate to either Congress or the President.
Passing an illegal bill is not precedent for Congress to usurp judicial power to strike down that bill.
President Denied Power to Have Discretion on Clear Constitutional Requirement
All requirements that the Congress override the President's likely veto do not apply.
The original bill, illegally denying habeas, is illegal and unconstitutional. Congress does not have to get permission from the President to restore what was never constitutionally deprived.
Illegal Assertion of Non-Delegated Powers
Congress has no power to vote -- up or down -- on the Constitution. Any claim that the Constitution can be "restored" impermissibly presumes that it can "unrestored" by a vote of Congress. This is false. Congress may only "unrestore" something in the Constitution by an Amendment.
There has been no Amendment to the Constitution related to Habeas; and Congress has no power to "restore" something which was never legally taken away. The restoration of the Constitution is not contingent upon the agreement of Congress -- which may or may not be conditional.
Rather, the restoration of the Constitution is linked with the original 1798 document, to which each Member of Congress swore an oath to uphold and defend.
Pretending that the original illegal bill did something -- which was not lawful -- imprermissibly accepts that Members of Congress have been complicity with assenting to illegal violations of the Constitution; or have attempted to enforce legal standards which are not permissible.
The Constitution is not a function of the vote of Congress as a body, but a mandatory requirement on the individual Members of Congress to which they swore an oath 5 USC 3331. Congress as a chamber has no power to deprived rights illegally; it cannot delegate itself the power to restore a right which was not legally deprived.
Congress has no power to deny rights illegally; and it cannot make the restoration of illegally deprived rights a function of whe4ther Congress agrees or disagrees with the restoration of what was not legally deprived.
This is legal matter, not a legislative one. The question is what is to be done to legally punish the individual Members of Congress for the violation of the law. It is irrelevant that they might attempt to undo what was not legally done. They're stuck with having done what was illegal; attempting to undo what was not legally done impermissible asks We the People to believe the Constitution is a function of the assent of Congress, which is untrue.
The Constitution is unrelated to whether Congress agrees or disagrees with it. The Constitution exists as a separate entity from the decisions of Congress; and it is not within the power of Congress to pretend that the Congress can or cannot restore something that the Constitution does not permit being discretionary.
The President and Congress have no power to debate this issue; nor can a Congress pretend that the bill, even if blocked, will entrench what is not lawful. That which is illegal and unconstitutional remains illegal, is not a precedent, and has no basis to guide the legal community.
The President and Congress, in passing the original bill, have illegally usurped power and authority we have no delegated to them.
The remedy is not to write a bill reaffirm what was never lawfully taken away; but to accept the original bill is not enforceable.
The President has no power to block what is not illegal; nor sign into law nor enforce what is not Constitutional.
It's a loser's argument to suggest Congress does or does not have the power to override the President's refusal to accept the Constitution.
We never delegated to Congress the power to assent to illegal bills; or illegal enforcement of unconstitutional acts of Congress.
The President has no power to enforce an unconstitutional act; and he has no power to enforce what the Constitution prohibits, except in narrow situations which do not apply in this situation.
The President and Congress were never delegated the power to debate whether rights can or cannot be denied when there is no insurrection or rebellion, as the Constitution requires.
As with inconvenient facts, the original bill is void and never legally existed; thus there is no legal requirement to pass a bill striking down or negating what never legally existed.
Our Constitution is not contingent upon the ebb and flow of Presidential support; nor does the President and Congress have any say on the original Constitution. Their job is to enforce, protect, and preserve the Constitution as it is written.
Debating this bill would, in effect, accept -- illegally -- the validity of the original bill which unconstitutionally did what is not permitted. That is impermissible.
The Constitution exists as a document, regardless whether the President agrees with it or not; until there is a Constitutional Amendment, the bill and Presidential enforcement tof that Unconstitutional bill shall be deemed evidence of high crimes warranting impeachment and removal from office.
This legal liability attaches to all Members of Congress, DoJ Staff, Congressional Staff counsel, and the White House counsel's office.
The President illegally usurped power to state -- illegally -- that he need not assent to the FISA court. Others may lawfully assert powers which We the People never delegate to the President or Congress:
___ The Power to recognize the original bills is invalid;
___ The power to conclude that the Congress may not legally be bound by the original bill and act;
___ The power to recognize that the failure of Congress to pass the new bill reversing the unconstitutional act is meaningless;
___ The power to recognize that even if Congress does nothing, or the President blocks the effort by Members of Congress to pass a new bill, the language in the Constitution does not change based on what Congress does or does not do with the new bill.
On behalf of all Americans, especially the silent ones, I delegate myself the power to strike the original bill as void. It never existed; and Congress and the President have no power to debate what must be done to remedy what was never legally broken or denied.
If the President and Congress do not like my ruling, they are free to make a rule prohibiting this conclusion. They have no power to do this because I have denied them the power; and We the People never delegated to Congress or the President the power to continue unconstitutional activity, but for the approval of Congress and the President to agree to comply.
Congress and the President have no power to ignore the Constitution; and whether hey do or do not pass a new bill is irrelevant to whether Habeas still applies.
Even if Congress refuses to act -- which it has no choice -- or the President refuses to sign the bill -- whether Congress or the President do or do not act on the second bill in no way changes what is in the Constitution: Habeas shall not be denied unless there is an invasion or rebellion.
All judicial officers who attempt to enforce the original illegal bill do so at their own peril per 42 USC 1983. Clearly established rights -- which habeas is -- cannot be deprived unless they are legally deprived.
All US and state and local government officials know, or should know, the original bill did not legally deprive anyone of any clearly established rights in the US Constitution, which apply to all regardless their location or nationality.
A defendant who is held without charge does not gain or lose his right to habeas baed on his cooperation or non-cooperation with other criteria. By his nature as a prisoner -- regardless the truth, veracity, merits, or non-merits of the charges or non-charges against the prisoner -- the prisoner is afforded the right to challenge his detention unless Congress and the President jointly agree through legislation to deprive the right in the wake of rebellion or invasion.
Until legally deprived, all rights and powers not delegated to the US government are retained by We the People: The right and privilege to challenge our detention, regardless our status.
Members of Congress may legally ask for data from DoJ OPR related to the illegal enforcement of the original bill.
___ Which DoJ Memorandum, policies, and guidelines were drafted putting the illegal policy into effect?
___ What was the Doj Staff counsel discussion after the decision was made? [Post-decision-memorandum related to Executive decisions are not protected.]
___ What data relating to policy, procedures, or other things in the FBI and DoJ relate to the enforcement of the illegal violation of habeas as they relate to Geneva?
___ What is the data, despite Hamdan affirming appliabilty of Geneva, that DoD Staff counsel and JAGS have assented to violations of clearly established rights under Geneva which counsel knew, or should have known, were contrary to the Geneva requirements in Article 82 -- compelling the Conventions to be fully enforced?
___ How were the oath of office requirements -- establishing that Geneva shall be fully enforced -- followed, ignored, or not adequately complied with in re 5 USC 3331?
___ What are the memorandum from Congressional Staff counsel on the urgency for "fixing" something that was never legally tampered with?
___ Is there a time line, set of milestones, or other criteria related to other litigation that compels Members of Congress to timely do something which they are not legally required to do?
___ If the President refuses to agree with the Constitution -- as the new, second bill envisions must be passed to "restore" the Constitution -- will Congress impermissibly agree to assent to the President's veto, and "accept" that the Constution has been illegally amended without going through the required Amendment process?