Habeas Corpus

Latin for "that you have the body." In the US system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid.  A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful.  A habeas petition proceeds as a civil action against the State agent (usually a warden) who holds the defendant in custody. It can also be used to examine any extradition processes used, the amount of bail, and the jurisdiction of the court.

The Habeas corpus first originated back in 1215, through the 39th clause of the Magna Carta signed by King John, which provided "No man shall be arrested or imprisoned...except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land."

English courts began actively considering petitions for habeas corpus in 1600.  While habeas corpus had initially originated as an instrument in opposition to the king’s “divine right to incarcerate people,” there were many other constables and other authorities during those times, who imprisoned people for various reasons.  Accordingly, habeas corpus also developed as the king's role to demand account for his subject who is restrained of his liberty by other authorities. 

Deeply rooted in the Anglo-American jurisprudence, the law of habeas corpus was adopted in the U.S. as well, by the early Founding Fathers.  James Madison, in 1789, argued for the adoption of the Bill of Rights, including Habeas Corpus.  The first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall, emphasized the importance of habeas corpus, writing in his decision in 1830, that the "great object" of the writ of habeas corpus "is the liberation of those who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause."  The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the "writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action" and must be "administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to ensure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected.

I am still not over allowing the wiretapping of US Citizens, instituted in the “W” Administration, under the guise of wiretapping foreign “undesirables”. Let’s face it, W was not much of a believer in the sanctity of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. After, the numbskull gave us Chief Justice Roberts, the “Hunt with any dog” Justice. I want that abolished, hopefully while Trump remains president.

Now, the malleable twirps we have become are for Suspending Habeas Corpus, under the aegis of Red Flag Laws. These are now in 17 States and the District of Columbia. These Red Flag Laws are in direct contradiction of 7 Constitutional Amendments, 6 of which are in MY Bill of Individual Rights! The other is the 14^th Amendment which simply reiterates and reaffirms the 4^th, 5^th and 6^th Amendments as well as the Federal Supremacy Clause. Firearms and the Militia actually do fall under the aegis of that Supremacy Clause. States do not have authority or prerogative in this, except the authority to have the Governor of the State as head of the State Militia, to appoint the officers and train the personnel.

Each time anyone pushes a button in these Red Flag Laws, we are suspending Habeas Corpus. I am not willing to tolerate that encroachment. So, now, effectively, we are reverting back to the king’s divine right to incarcerate people. I am not willing to go there.