Random legal thought
So, I was thinking about the Suspension Clause a bit tonight, and a thought occurred. First, the text of the clause:
"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."
So, we know that in the initial British system, the government had an unchecked power to suspend habeas corpus. Here, we have specific limitations on that power. What I wonder is this: without this clause, would the government have had the power to suspend habeas corpus arbitrarily? This is clearly phrased as a limitation on power, not a grant. That seems (to me) to imply that the power existed beforehand. That would seem to give some credence to the idea that we're not a government of strictly, textually limited powers - that some powers would subside even in the absence of an explicit grant thereof. The implications of that conclusion are, I think it's obvious, rather far-reaching.
"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."
So, we know that in the initial British system, the government had an unchecked power to suspend habeas corpus. Here, we have specific limitations on that power. What I wonder is this: without this clause, would the government have had the power to suspend habeas corpus arbitrarily? This is clearly phrased as a limitation on power, not a grant. That seems (to me) to imply that the power existed beforehand. That would seem to give some credence to the idea that we're not a government of strictly, textually limited powers - that some powers would subside even in the absence of an explicit grant thereof. The implications of that conclusion are, I think it's obvious, rather far-reaching.