We warned the right about Trump, and they didn't believe us.

Trump once said he 'doesn't know' if he's required to uphold the Constitution. And no--the context doesn’t mitigate the absurdity of the remark. This is a question to which any other president in American history would’ve answered instinctively, unequivocally, and instantly: 'Yes,' or 'Of course.' That Trump hesitated--let alone expressed doubt--is not just a lapse; it’s a revelation. If that doesn’t tell you who Trump is, then what on earth would?

Miller is discussing 'suspending habeas corpus' is an 'option we are looking at'. This is not something any administration in modernity, short of WWII or a Civil War on the scale of those wars, would ever entertain.

Gen. Kelly said 'He is fascist to the core'.

And You guys say we're 'alarmists'?

Are you kidding me?

No, it's like this.

There exists in the Anglo-American legal tradition a singular phrase--"The Great Writ"--to describe habeas corpus, that ancient and noble legal recourse by which a detained individual may demand to know why they have been seized and on what grounds they are held. It is the habeas petition--quiet, persistent, and deadly--that tugs at the robe of power and whispers: “Prove it.”

Here's the thing. If Trump suspends habeas corpus, it can't be done selectively. That means that YOU could be imprisoned, and you would not have the right to ask the court to review whether or not your imprisonment was just. Is this something you want? Well, it's not something anyone who loves liberty would ever want. In the polling question, the third option is 'No, you guys on the left are alarmists. Trump needs to do this to deport 11 million illegals.' Remember this, and really understand it, that the absence of habeas corpus is what all banana republics, dictatorships, etc., lack.

Without an individual's ability to subject his or her incarceration to judicial review is foundational, it is the difference between tyranny and democracy. IT IS THE DIFFERENCE. You see, you don't give a guy like Trump this kind of power. He ENVIES the kinds of power that Putin, KJU, have. You give him an inch, he'll take the proverbial mile, and then some, and once he has it, he won't give it up, ever. If he is allowed to suspend habeas corpus, the next item on his bucket list will be to suspend elections and install himself permanently. And then you can kiss America goodbye.

Let us be clear from the start: habeas corpus is not a privilege in the sense that it may be whimsically dispensed or withdrawn like dessert at a royal banquet. It is foundational--indeed, pre-constitutional. That the United States Constitution refers to it as a "privilege" is a linguistic relic, not a legal diminishment. If anything, the framing of the Suspension Clause in Article I, Section 9 makes the point: 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.

What follows from this is not that habeas is some gracious gift of the state, but rather that its nonexistence must be justified by the gravest possible circumstances: rebellion or invasion. In its affirmative state, it is presumed permanent and inviolable. The burden of proof is not on the detained, but on the detainer. The state, in all its pomp and might, must justify itself.

And so, to the point. When former President Donald J. Trump--our own tinpot Caligula, minus the poetry--flirts with the suspension of habeas corpus, it is not simply a matter of dubious legal theory. It is a full frontal assault on the Enlightenment values that animate liberal democracy. I'm not using 'liberal democracy' in the right v left sense, I'm using it in the classic, 'age of enlightenment' sense.

Stephen Miller, the cadaverous ventriloquist behind much of Trump’s ethno-nationalist theater, recently suggested that Trump might once again “explore” the suspension of habeas corpus to facilitate mass deportations. (One might note, parenthetically, that the very phrase “explore the suspension of habeas corpus” has the whiff of Orwellian madness about it--akin to “exploring oxygen rationing” or “flirting with gravity reversal.”)

Miller’s justification? The “invasion” at the southern border. Ah yes, the slow, desperate trickle of brown-skinned day laborers and asylum seekers fleeing gang violence and authoritarianism in Central America--hardly Napoleon’s Grande Armée.

To twist the Suspension Clause to apply to these migrants is not merely bad constitutional law--it is historical illiteracy so profound one imagines even Marbury v. Madison sobbing from its grave. But what would we expect from a moron who, when asked if believes it is his responsibility, as president, says 'I don't know'. You elect a clown for president and this is the circus you sew. As Ex parte Milligan (1866) reminds us, even in the thick of the Civil War, when Confederate troops were quite literally marching through American fields, the Court ruled that martial law and the suspension of habeas corpus could not apply where civilian courts remained open. Civil liberties, the Court argued, do not vanish in times of crisis; rather, they matter most then.

Fast forward to Boumediene v. Bush (200, where the Supreme Court--in a moment of judicial lucidity--ruled that Guantanamo detainees had the constitutional right to habeas corpus, regardless of location. “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” wrote Justice Kennedy, whose prose lacks the fire of Brandeis but occasionally catches a spark.

And what, then, are we to make of Trump’s desire to throttle this legal artery? Is it fascism?

One tires of the word, which has been cheapened by overuse. But if we mean by fascism the worship of state power, the fetishization of the leader, the targeting of ethnic minorities, the persecution of dissent, the bypassing of courts, and the substitution of emotion for reason--then yes, the shoe fits. It fits snugly. Like some sharply tongued southerner from Savanah might quip, 'as snug as a bug in a rug', mind you.

A would-be autocrat who seeks to silence judges, purge civil servants, and exile the unwanted without legal recourse does not need to build camps or wear jackboots to earn the title. He merely needs to unravel the subtle threads of law and custom that hold tyranny at bay.

Habeas corpus is not just legal arcana. It is a line drawn in the sand between liberty and lawlessness. Trump and his apostles wish to kick dust over that line and dance across it with glee. If allowed, they would turn the courts into stage props and the Constitution into a pamphlet of exceptions.

As Orwell wrote in Politics and the English Language, “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” So it is with the rhetoric of “invasion,” of “suspension,” of “safety.” And so it was when despots of the past claimed they too were protecting “the homeland.”

Now, i suspect a few on this forum are going to argume something on the order of, 'well, I think it would be okay because Trump could declare he was going to suspend habeas corpus to non citizens who are 'gang members'. In other words, suspend it 'selectively'.

So, to the idea of suspending habeas corpus selectively for "gang members":

Ah yes--“gang members.” The new euphemism for the disposable class. One can practically hear the authoritarian boot clicking into place as the phrase is uttered, usually by someone who believes that justice begins and ends with a badge and a booking photo.

Let us examine this proposition with the contempt it deserves. You suggest that habeas corpus--the most ancient and elemental safeguard against tyranny--a concept whose roots were shaped as far back, even farther, by the Magna Carta, ought to be selectively denied to those whom the state, in its magnanimous wisdom, deems “gang members?” Do you not see the danger in this, or are you merely pretending not to?

By what mechanism, I ask, will these “gang members” be identified? Will we rely on hearsay? Secret lists? Tattoos? Zip codes? Or perhaps the all-knowing hunch of a police officer? Do you understand what you are proposing? A system wherein a government can declare you dangerous and then deny you the right to contest that very designation. You would make the accusation itself the evidence and the punishment.

This is not law--it is the abdication of law. It is the logic of banana republics and midnight disappearances. It is the Soviet knock on the door, the apartheid-era passbook check, the secret trial in a back room. It is not American justice. It is not civilization. It is what habeas corpus was designed to prevent.

The writ does not say: Produce the body... unless we don’t like the body. It does not say: You have a right to challenge your detention... unless we’ve called you a name that sounds scary on Fox News.

Even during the blood-drenched days of the Civil War, with actual treason in the streets, the Supreme Court in Ex parte Milligan held that the government could not deny habeas corpus to civilians while the courts were open. And now you propose to do so in peacetime, based on a label as malleable as wet clay?

And who decides who is in a gang? The President? The Department of Homeland Security? An ICE agent with a grudge and a clipboard? You open the door to a regime in which citizenship, liberty, and even innocence are determined not by courts, but by decree. That is not justice--it is fascism in its Sunday clothes.

If you believe that the rule of law is a luxury we cannot afford, then I suggest you admit it outright and stop sullying the Constitution with your presence. But do not--do not--desecrate the principle of habeas corpus by carving loopholes for the politically undesirable. History has shown again and again that those whom the state detains without trial are rarely the ones who pose the real danger.

It is not the accused “gang member” that threatens the republic. It is the man who says the accused should not be heard in court.

Let us then dispense with euphemism and call things by their names. A president who toys with suspension of habeas corpus to rid the nation of undesirables is not “tough on immigration”--he is an aspiring tyrant. A man who circumvents courts is not “decisive”--he is lawless. A government that imprisons without review is not “efficient”--it is despotic.

The defense of habeas corpus, like the defense of any liberty, must be constant, inconvenient, and unsparing. It must hold firm even--and especially--when the mob screams for safety, and when a demagogue whispers that he alone can fix it.

History is not short of men who promised order and delivered chains. Let us not, in the name of false necessity, become their heirs.

 

The writ of habeas corpus isn't going anywhere.
LINK: states Only Congress can suspend habeas corpus.

 

So far, he has got rid of a bunch of criminal illegals, started righting some flawed trade agreements and secured the border. You did not warn us about that.

 

Tell that to Steven Miller

 

Lots of people say lots of things. You take any bad thing said about Trump seriously.

 

Yesterday, Miller claimed that he and his team were looking into suspending Habeas Corpus on the pretext of an immigrant invasion.

 

“So far,” you say, “he has got rid of a bunch of criminal illegals”--a statement so blunt it could have been chiseled in stone by a xenophobic caveman. Let us examine this triumphalist grunt for the sophistry it is.

First, the phrase “criminal illegals” is a masterpiece of imprecision. What crime, precisely? Crossing the border? A misdemeanor on first offense—no more inherently evil than a parking violation. Or do you mean the unproven suspicion of gang affiliation? The mere aroma of criminality as determined by ICE algorithms, graffiti tattoos, or the zip code one was unlucky enough to be born in? The Founders did not fight a revolution so bureaucrats with badges could act as judge, jury, and deportation officer.

Second, when you say Trump “got rid of them,” you speak as though human beings were vermin to be fumigated. How elegant. How Roman. And yet, one cannot help but notice that many of those “got rid of” were deported without hearings, without review, and often in violation of court orders. Is this your idea of justice? Or merely the cheap, televised spectacle of it?

Third, you mention “righting flawed trade agreements.” Yes, of course--by replacing multilateral accords with chaos, tariffs with tantrums, and diplomacy with economic graffiti. The “stable genius” launched trade wars like confetti, punishing allies and rivals alike while achieving... what? A new NAFTA with a different font and a press conference? Meanwhile, farmers were issued bailout checks like condolence letters. Bravo.

As for “securing the border,”*--ah, the golden calf of the modern right, worshipped with the fervor of the credulous. The stats which result from cruelty are not valid stats, but, apparently, you didn't get the memo mainly because to the right, cruelty is the point, eh, kriman? And what did it yield? Steel slats, half-built vanity fencing, contracts for grifters, and a vision of America as a gated community with delusions of empire. Meanwhile, drugs flowed through ports of entry, and migrants tunneled, climbed, or simply walked around. And now you suggest that the next logical step is to suspend habeas corpus?

Your comment proves the point you intended to refute.

We didn't warn you? Oh, but we did. We screamed it from the rooftops while you were busy humming the Horst-Wessel-Lied in the key of plausible deniability. The problem is not that we failed to warn you. The problem is that you refused to listen--because the jackboot felt comfortable, so long as it wasn't on your neck.

You defend the loss of liberty because it hasn’t knocked on your door yet. But history is nothing if not the slow recognition that doors open both ways--and that tyrants rarely retire voluntarily.

 

Miller was the architect of the zero tolerance policy, which resulted in almost 4000 children being permanently separated from there parents. Not that the right cares, of course.

What Miller contemplates, Trump implements This isn't scuttlebut when it comes to Miller.

 

(1) How many VIOLENT criminal illegals did Trump deport so far? He got rid of a "bunch" of criminal illegals, but how many of those are VIOLENT criminals? Since a state of WAR has been declared with Venezuelan gangs, large "bunches" (tens of thousands) of SUPPOSED VIOLENT criminal illegal aliens and terrorists, were scrooped up without due process. NO TIME FOR THAT! When you are at war, it's like martial law and no time for due process, because you need to deport LOTS of people quickly, whether they are guilty or not.
"While exact numbers of deported violent criminal undocumented immigrants are not publicly detailed, available data indicates that tens of thousands have been arrested and deported under President Trump's renewed immigration enforcement policies. While the administration reports high numbers of arrests and deportations, it's important to note some deportations have been carried out under expedited processes, raising concerns about due process and the potential for wrongful deportations."

(2) "While the U.S. faced a substantial trade deficit in manufactured goods in 2024, this was partially offset by a robust surplus in services. Manufacturing isn't everything. The US services sector continues to play a crucial role in balancing the nation's trade dynamics. The U.S. maintained a strong surplus in services, exporting more than it imported, particularly in sectors like finance, technology, and consulting."
Bureau of Economic Analysis
(3) Yay, he secured the southern border!

 

Why do you insist on minimizing. First of all crossing our border ilelgally is much more serious than a parking violation. Then on top of that, those millions of ilelgals have not been vetted. You can not cross into any country legally without being vetted.

Which proves what? Many more times that many were separated from their parents under Biden and likely many of those have been sold into prostitution or slavery. Most likely those separated under Trump ended up in good homes.

 

Why should the US accept higher tariffs on our goods than our competitors do on theirs? Likely the current problems are temporary and we will end up better off.

 

Are you sure about that?

Martial law in the United States

Legal basis

The martial law concept in the United States is closely tied to the right of habeas corpus, which is, in essence, the right to a hearing and trial on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is related to the imposition of martial law.[2] Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, "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." There have been many instances of the use of the military within the borders of the United States, such as during the Whiskey Rebellion, President Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus in 1861 in order to arrest of one-third of the Maryland state assembly, and in the South during the Civil Rights Movement, but those acts are not tantamount to a declaration of martial law.[citation needed]

In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II.[citation needed] In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids US military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.

Throughout history, martial law has been imposed at least 68[3] times in limited, usually local areas of the United States. Martial law was declared for these reasons: Twice for war or invasion, seven times for domestic war or insurrection, eleven times for riot or civil unrest, 29 times for labor dispute, four times for natural disaster and fifteen times for other reasons.[3] Habeas corpus was suspended federally only once in 1863 during the Civil War.[3]

Skipping ...

2025 Executive Order

On April 28, 2025, President Donald Trump published an executive order titled Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens.[33] Section 4 of the order "Using National Security Assets for Law and Order" mandates that the Secretary of Defense determine routes to use military in law enforcement capacities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_the_United_States

 

The party that insists that the 2nd Amendment can be abolished legislatively has zero credibility, now.

 

Burning up the IA kernel this morning, eh?
P.S. Do a little research, Habeas Corpus HAS been suspended in times of war or invasion which 20 million illegal entrants seems to fit.

 

So what tariffs do your competitors apply on their goods? And how will you end up being better off?

 

"seriously" is an understatement by 10 orders of magnitude.

 

He is of no consequence.

 

Yes, I am.

 

I don't know. Maybe you check with a few relatives of those murdered by the illegals. Then there is the very real threat of terrorists coming across our border.

How do you give due process to over ten million illegals?

 

The Constitution makes no exception for volume sorry you either believe in the Constitution or you don't

 

It's simple: due process for an illegal alien only requires that the government confirm they're an illegal alien. Thousands of illegals can be processed through Article 2 courts per day.

 

The Constitution doesn't require a jury trial, either.

 

The writers of the Constitution did not envision an invasion of over ten million ILLEGAL ALIENS.

I believe in the Constitution and have sworn allegiance to it over a half dozen times. Believing in the Constitution does not keep me from having an opinion which in this case, the Constitution is wrong.

 

Don't give me any of your bull about not believing in the Constitution. You have advocated getting rid of the electoral college on numerous occasions.

 

You said more in one sentence than he said in 20 paragraphs.