What is the current status of Habeas Corpus for U.S. citizens?
960870
It's gone for enemy combatants.  However the bill also expands the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant to cover anyone who “has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” Quick, define “purposefully and materially.” One person has already been charged with aiding terrorists because he sold a satellite TV package that includes the Hezbollah network. \n\nThe bill simply removes a suspect’s right to challenge his detention in court. This is a rule of law that goes back to the Magna Carta in 1215. That pretty much leaves the barn door open.
908335
I don't really understand the question.  As a citizen you have the rights of legal and political nature as guaranteed by the Constitution.
702049
Right here.\n\nhttp://www.supreme.state.az.us/publicaccess/notification/default.asp
1126414
Well there are certainly questions about the American Judicial system. We have good judges and nut cases. But you are still subject to American law. No offense but, until God grants you a place in his nation, you are on American soil. Under American law.  Good luck and let me know how it goes. (And if you get tossed in the local jail, let me know how bubba feels about your standards! Heeeeee...
608024
Not Too Bad grim reaper\n\nI Guess Im Gettin My Point Across :-)\n\nFIRST - I Would Station Troops Along The Border With AUTHORIZATION To Use Deadly Force\nTo Prevent ANY UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY Into The United States\n\nSECOND - I Would Implement The Third Provision Of HR4437 As It Is Written\n\nAnyone or any organization who “assists” an individual without documentation “to reside in or remain” in the United States knowingly or with “reckless disregard” as to the individual’s legal status would be liable for criminal penalties and five years in prison.   This could include church personnel who provide shelter or other basic needs assistance to an undocumented individual.   Property used in this act would be subject to seizure and forfeiture.\nhttp://www.justiceforimmigrants.org/HR4437.html\n\nThat Would Cover The Employers - \n5 Years In Prison And Loss Of All Assets For Hiring Illegal Aliens - NO EXCEPTIONS\n\nTHIRD - I Would Reform The HEALTH, EDUCATION, And WELFARE Systems So That Those Services Will Be Available ONLY To The CITIZENS Of The USA - EMERGENCY Services Only To All Others\n\nFOURTH  - I Would Empty The Prisons Of All ILLEGAL Aliens And Deport Them To Their Nations Of Origin\n\nFIFTH  - I Would DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS UPON DISCOVERY\nNo Jails\nNo Judge\nNo Jury\nYou Have The Oppurtunity To Prove You Are Authorized To Be In The USA\nIf You Are NOT AUTHORIZED To Be In This Nation, You Will Be DEPORTED\n\nSIXTH - I Would ENFORCE The 14TH Amendment -\nThe key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase\n\n"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF."\n\nThe whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means: \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment EXCLUDES the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873) \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874)\n\nThe phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" REQUIRES "Direct And Immediate ALLEGIENCE" to the United States, NOT JUST PHYSICAL PRESENCE. \n(Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)\n\nThere is NO automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) \n\nThe Supreme Court has NEVER confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of Illegal Aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. \n(Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982) \n\n\nThat Would Be A START - Give Me A Little Time\n\n\n****In The Mean Time... I Would Have The Following Individuals (AMONG OTHERS) REMOVED FROM OFFICE And Tried For TREASONOUS CRIMES Against The United States Of America\n\n-- Antonio Villaraigosa \nMayor- Los Angeles, California-"\n\n-- Mario Obledo \nMexican American Legal Defense\n\n-- Art Torres \nCalifornia Democratic Party chairman - \n\n-- Jose Baca \nCalifornia State Senator - \n\n-- Richard Alatorre \nLos Angeles City Council - \n\n-- Gloria Molina \n Los Angeles County Supervisor\n\n-- Cruz Bustamante \nFormer Lt. Governor, California \n\n-- Fernando Guerra, \nProfessor, Loyola Marymount University -
532009
It is just a small part of a big problem. Since 9-11 the govt has been taking more and more of our freedoms from us,(the American People). We have the patriot act, warrentless spying on the American people, no more habeas corpus, it is called FACISM. Very scary.
1096839
Before you go off on rants you should really read the decision. The court left open the possibility of congress enacting new law allowing tribunals.\n\nI also feel the need to point out that these are not American citizens, and as such are not subject to the same rights as American citizens. They are also not true enemy combatants which does not make them subject to the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court has once again over stepped it bounds, and in essence have just ratified a treaty with terrorists which is completely outside their juristiction.\n\nDon't misunderstand I am not trying to slap you down, or denigrate your opinion, just trying to give clarification. I do not believe this decision is a good one for anyone involved. For Americans it puts our safety in jeopardy yet again. It also places the lives of the same people it is designed to help in jeopardy. Consider this, when faced with the reality that we cannot safely detain enemy non- combatants what will the result be on the battlefield? I can tell it isn't going to be altruistic in nature.\n\nDeeJay I don't remember the rights of Americans ever being an issue in this case. In fact in cases where American Citizens have been accused of the same acts they have been tried in American criminal courts with full constitutional protection.
123214
i don't think there is one.   Just read it.  If this is for school, I would focus on the amendments.
403068
First of all it is unconstitutional to make status a crime, that is someone cannot be lawfully detained unless there is proper cause or there is presidential authority under times of war. Only lately have decisions come down in Supreme Court which give basic rights to those detained in the US base in Cuba (Guantanomo Bay). \n\nThe problem with racial profiling is that it can lead to unconstiutional arrests and basic harrassment of minority groups simply based on skin color. This gives too many people, even those who are not racist and have good intentions, too broad of a license to police. \n\nThe question is: Once we start eliminating the constitutional rights of some, how long before our own rights are eliminated for what we think is a valid reason at the time. The whole point of the constitution and bill of rights is that those rights are inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away or given away no matter what we think. Our founding fathers realized there will always be times when it seems our rights should take second to our needs, however, they also realize that certain rights are never worth compromising. Racial profiling leads us down that same wrong path of compromise.\n\nIt does not legally exists, but is still a policy used by certain police departments in urban areas and is used grossly by the FBI.\n\nThat is the jist of the controversy.
1154296
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
384580
In many countries there is a provison to file a "habeas corpus"petition in a state high court which directs the police to inform the next of kin the whereabouts of any person missing or incarcerated.
793141
Under current US law....\n\nThe prison is still open. Prisoners are held in US custody. They are denied access to the courts, in violation of the 1st Amendment right to petition. They are denied habeus corpus, in violation of Article I Section 9. They are often denied counsel, in violation of the 6th Amendment.\n\nThey cannot be tortured. However, the government interrogators get to define what the word "torture" means. \n\nThey can be tried in an irregular court, in violation of 5th Amendment Due Process requirements. Their coerced and compelled confessions (obtained during 'non-torture interrogation') can be used against them, in violation of the 5th Amendment self-incrimination clause.\n\nInformation obtained from out-of-court sources can be used to prosecute them, without any chance to cross examine, in violation of 6th Amendment requirements. They do not have the right to call witnesses in their defense, in violation of 6th Amendment requirements.\n\nAs to what the punishments and interrogation matters are, those are now classified. Nobody is allowed to speak of them, and the prisoners (even those released as not-guilty) are not allowed to file lawsuits challenging what was done to them.\n\nIn short, under the laws passed by the recent Congress, the government is not required to follow the Constitution. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has said they do. \n\nAnd somehow, we still claim that we have the moral highground, and that the rule of law still matters.....
538325
Habeus Corpus is defined as a writ requiring an incarcerated person to be brought before a judge for an investigation of the restraint of that person's liberty. Habeus Corpus is used as a means to remedy wrongful arrest. Your son was not wrongfully arrested. There was a bench warrant for his arrest. Therefore a writ of Habeus Corpus does not apply.\nThe fifth amendment protections include freedom from self incrimination, unlawful interrogations and prevention from punishment without due process. I don't see how your sons Fifth Amendment rights were violated. He was lawfully arrested as a result of failure to appear in court, therefore he is lawfully incarcerated.\n\nTo the person who answered before me, the body of the crime is referred to as 'corpus delecti'.
792836
In law, a WRIT is a formal written order issued by a public body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction. In modern usage, this public body is normally a COURT. Warrants, prerogative writs, and subpoenas are types of writs, but there are many others.\n\n \nThe writ of HABEAS CORPUS means 'let us have the body'. It is a writ issued to a detaining authority to produce the detained person in court to know cause for detention. If the detention is found to be illegal, the court issues an order to set the person free.\n\n \nThe writ of CERTIORARI is one of the writs issued by the High Court or the Supreme court to protect the Fundamental rights of the citizens. It is issued to a lower court directing it that the record of a case be sent up for review with all the files, evidence and documents with an aim to overrule the judgement of the lower court.
361559
yes! it is so unconstitutional! its just like the alien and sedition acts of the past! remove it now!
692052
The above regarding the Supreme Court is excellent.  But I think that the term refers more specifically to habeas corpus and/or declaratory judgments.  Hope this helps.  The guy above that disrespects lawyers and the military in one fell scoop seems to have the type of attitude I see in criminals.  When they end up in jail and need a lawyer they come crying for help! But I do have a sense of humor and got a small chuckle out of it.
315770
Its about time!  Only 49 more states to go!\n\nIf you are legal in this country, you won't have a problem proving it when asked.