The Trump administration's recent consideration of suspending habeas corpus to enhance its deportation powers has ignited a constitutional debate. Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller suggested this option, invoking the notion of invasion as justification. Legal experts, however, caution against such measures, emphasizing that habeas corpus is designed to protect individuals from arbitrary detention. Historically, its suspension has been rare and typically reserved for extreme circumstances like rebellion or invasion, with the last instance occurring during World War II. This raises significant concerns about potential abuses of power and the violation of constitutional rights.
The Constitution is clear, and that of course is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion... I would say that's an option we're actively looking at.
I know there's a lot going on, and that Miller says lots of incendiary (and blatantly false) stuff. But this strikes me as raising the temperature to a whole new level.
Habeas corpus was included in the Constitution as an import from English common law. In 1679, the law was passed to ensure that King Charles II would release prisoners when their confinement was unjustifiable.
The last time this occurred was in 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II.
Collection
[
|
...
]