Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
"Alfred Einstead" <whopkins@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
That does not mean when the US invades another country, it means
when another country invades the US.
First of all, this has nothing to do with anything you're replying
to, so it's irrelevant. There's nothing in here:
(1) is there a likelihood that the person or people in question
actually have involvement in any of these activities
(2) do the activities in question constitute a threat to the
public safety of a sufficiently urgent nature to warrant the
designation "invasion" or "rebellion"
(3) is the need to protect the public safety with regard to
these actual or potential acts strong enough to warrant the
above-mentioned suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus.
that said anything about the US invading another country.
Second, your point doesn't make sense. The section (and the
subject of this article) pertains to individuals, not to nations.
There is no such thing as the writ of Habeas Corpus for nations,
as you're apparently suggesting by your spurious reply.
The conflict that needs to be decided upon is between this
section in the Constitution vs. Amendments IV and V.
There is [sic] no conflict:
That would be for the courts to decide. There is no legal authority
that holds to Amendments IV and V superseding any part of Article I
Section 9. The only part of section 9 generally held to be
superseded or modified by any amendment, in fact, is the fourth
paragraph, which deals with taxation (affected by Amendment XVI).
the amendments are part of the Constitution,
Non sequitur.
