3 ms·

Article I, Section 9 says: > The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety

Article I, Section 9 says: > The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. I wonder what we can find in the “emanations from penumbras” of the word “invasion.”

belter 2y ago
Clear for all to see. History will not be kind to those US 71 million voters: "Protecting the American People Against Invasion" - https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-american-people-against-invasion/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prot...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
gizmo686 2y ago
Notably, Trump has already officially declared that the US is facing an invasion back in March. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/invocation-of-the-alien-enemies-act-regarding-the-invasion-of-the-united-states-by-tren-de-aragua/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/invo...
mindslight 2y ago
"They did it first!" is the reasoning of a child.
- dkkergoog 2y ago
  [dead]
- rayiner 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mindslight 2y ago
    Except your "two-way street" just runs between two different camps of authoritarians, writing off the criticisms from those of us earnestly interested in individual liberty. Your rationalization is essentially a high-worded version of the bog standard mutual partisanship.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - mindslight 2y ago
        I can't tell how you intend to apply that concept to form an actual argument. It seems like you're just grasping at any straw that might justify continuing to support this anti-American neofascist movement, even as the plain reality keeps on revealing itself.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        rayiner 2y ago
        [flagged]
        mindslight 2y ago
        So you were merely rephrasing the same "both sides" false dichotomy in terms of yet another abstract concept, to continue rationalizing your support for fascism? If the system of autocratic authoritarianism has merit on its own, then why the need to continually sugar coat it? At least Yarvin had the guts to advocate for autocracy directly (old Yarvin, that is. before he got corrupted by the taste of power).
        rayiner 2y ago
        [flagged]
UncleMeat 2y ago
It is important to understand that the "penumbra" used as part of the justification of Roe expands the liberty of individuals and limits the power of the state. There is further an entire amendment (the 9th) that expressly says that such penumbras exist and that the constitution does not contain an exhaustive list of liberties. This is wildly different than saying "well, invasion can mean anything so its fascism time."
- rayiner 2y ago
  > It is important to understand that the "penumbra" used as part of the justification of Roe expands the liberty of individuals and limits the power of the state. So does Lochner. There’s a libertarian reading of the constitution where you can justify interpreting the text so as to maximize individual liberty. But almost nobody subscribes to that. They just like reading the text expansively when it comes to sexual liberties and narrowly when it comes to economic ones. Which is certainly the exact opposite of what the founders were concerned about.
  - mdhb 2y ago
    Self identified libertarians have for at least 20 years now seemed to have had an almost singular focus on age of consent laws and tax avoidance. It’s a magnet for the dregs of society.
  - UncleMeat 2y ago
    Even if this was true, this is totally unrelated to the question of habeas corpus. "I don't like the ways in which the 9th amendment and the substantive due process clause have been applied" is a fine thing to believe, I guess. But there zero connection to any path to Trump establishing full blown fascism by saying we are under invasion and locking up his political enemies.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      Of course it’s related. If “emanations from penumbras” is valid constitutional reasoning, it’s valid for everybody. It’s valid for the people who want to strike down state laws regulating morality, and it’s valid for the people who want to expedite deportation of illegal immigrants. The Constitution says habeas may be suspended “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” “Rebellion” and “Invasion” are not textual prerequisites for suspending habeas corpus, but rather specific emanations from a broader penumbra encompassing threats to “public Safety.” Incursions into U.S. territory by illegal aliens and foreign gangs easily falls within that penumbra. Moreover, the word “invasion” isn’t necessarily limited to military invasions. It can refer to incursions by foreign elements, as in the phrase “invasive species.” That confirms that habeas corpus can be suspended in response to incursions onto U.S. soil by illegal aliens and gangs. And after all, the founders couldn’t have anticipated the rise of sophisticated international criminal organizations like MS13, which rise to the level of quasi-state actors. A small band of MS13 armed with modern weapons of war would be comparable to a military detachment armed with muskets in 1789. And yes, while suspension of habeas is mentioned in Article I, it’s only listed as a negative limitation. It doesn’t say only Congress can suspend habeas. Just like how when Article II says “the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” that doesn’t mean that Congress can’t also create independent agencies that exercise that power.

belter 2y ago

Clear for all to see. History will not be kind to those US 71 million voters: "Protecting the American People Against Invasion" - https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-american-people-against-invasion/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prot...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

gizmo686 2y ago

Notably, Trump has already officially declared that the US is facing an invasion back in March. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/invocation-of-the-alien-enemies-act-regarding-the-invasion-of-the-united-states-by-tren-de-aragua/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/invo...

mindslight 2y ago

"They did it first!" is the reasoning of a child.

dkkergoog 2y ago
[dead]
rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- mindslight 2y ago
  Except your "two-way street" just runs between two different camps of authoritarians, writing off the criticisms from those of us earnestly interested in individual liberty. Your rationalization is essentially a high-worded version of the bog standard mutual partisanship.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - mindslight 2y ago
      I can't tell how you intend to apply that concept to form an actual argument. It seems like you're just grasping at any straw that might justify continuing to support this anti-American neofascist movement, even as the plain reality keeps on revealing itself.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - rayiner 2y ago
        [flagged]
        mindslight 2y ago
        So you were merely rephrasing the same "both sides" false dichotomy in terms of yet another abstract concept, to continue rationalizing your support for fascism? If the system of autocratic authoritarianism has merit on its own, then why the need to continually sugar coat it? At least Yarvin had the guts to advocate for autocracy directly (old Yarvin, that is. before he got corrupted by the taste of power).
        rayiner 2y ago
        [flagged]

UncleMeat 2y ago

It is important to understand that the "penumbra" used as part of the justification of Roe expands the liberty of individuals and limits the power of the state. There is further an entire amendment (the 9th) that expressly says that such penumbras exist and that the constitution does not contain an exhaustive list of liberties. This is wildly different than saying "well, invasion can mean anything so its fascism time."

rayiner 2y ago
> It is important to understand that the "penumbra" used as part of the justification of Roe expands the liberty of individuals and limits the power of the state. So does Lochner. There’s a libertarian reading of the constitution where you can justify interpreting the text so as to maximize individual liberty. But almost nobody subscribes to that. They just like reading the text expansively when it comes to sexual liberties and narrowly when it comes to economic ones. Which is certainly the exact opposite of what the founders were concerned about.
- mdhb 2y ago
  Self identified libertarians have for at least 20 years now seemed to have had an almost singular focus on age of consent laws and tax avoidance. It’s a magnet for the dregs of society.
- UncleMeat 2y ago
  Even if this was true, this is totally unrelated to the question of habeas corpus. "I don't like the ways in which the 9th amendment and the substantive due process clause have been applied" is a fine thing to believe, I guess. But there zero connection to any path to Trump establishing full blown fascism by saying we are under invasion and locking up his political enemies.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Of course it’s related. If “emanations from penumbras” is valid constitutional reasoning, it’s valid for everybody. It’s valid for the people who want to strike down state laws regulating morality, and it’s valid for the people who want to expedite deportation of illegal immigrants. The Constitution says habeas may be suspended “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” “Rebellion” and “Invasion” are not textual prerequisites for suspending habeas corpus, but rather specific emanations from a broader penumbra encompassing threats to “public Safety.” Incursions into U.S. territory by illegal aliens and foreign gangs easily falls within that penumbra. Moreover, the word “invasion” isn’t necessarily limited to military invasions. It can refer to incursions by foreign elements, as in the phrase “invasive species.” That confirms that habeas corpus can be suspended in response to incursions onto U.S. soil by illegal aliens and gangs. And after all, the founders couldn’t have anticipated the rise of sophisticated international criminal organizations like MS13, which rise to the level of quasi-state actors. A small band of MS13 armed with modern weapons of war would be comparable to a military detachment armed with muskets in 1789. And yes, while suspension of habeas is mentioned in Article I, it’s only listed as a negative limitation. It doesn’t say only Congress can suspend habeas. Just like how when Article II says “the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” that doesn’t mean that Congress can’t also create independent agencies that exercise that power.