> 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.
I wonder what we can find in the “emanations from penumbras” of the word “invasion.”
This is wildly different than saying "well, invasion can mean anything so its fascism time."
So does Lochner. There’s a libertarian reading of the constitution where you can justify interpreting the text so as to maximize individual liberty. But almost nobody subscribes to that. They just like reading the text expansively when it comes to sexual liberties and narrowly when it comes to economic ones. Which is certainly the exact opposite of what the founders were concerned about.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/invo...
"Protecting the American People Against Invasion" - https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prot...
Sure, major and powerful agencies aren't "the US Government" in general. (There's still Congress and Courts). But that's still not a force of people you want to be messing with.
Suspending Trump's illegal order immediately should be the priority. Or otherwise preempting it before it gets too far. Commanding entire agencies to suspend parts of the Constitution unilaterally is not going to be good for us.
> the ability to suspend habeas corpus is something Congress can do, not the president or his aide
Congress isn't the group who has police forces and prisons to illegally detain you in. Its the President who owns and controls the police forces and prisons who can issue orders to ignore habeas corpus.
The Constitution says habeas may be suspended “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” “Rebellion” and “Invasion” are not textual prerequisites for suspending habeas corpus, but rather specific emanations from a broader penumbra encompassing threats to “public Safety.” Incursions into U.S. territory by illegal aliens and foreign gangs easily falls within that penumbra. Moreover, the word “invasion” isn’t necessarily limited to military invasions. It can refer to incursions by foreign elements, as in the phrase “invasive species.” That confirms that habeas corpus can be suspended in response to incursions onto U.S. soil by illegal aliens and gangs. And after all, the founders couldn’t have anticipated the rise of sophisticated international criminal organizations like MS13, which rise to the level of quasi-state actors. A small band of MS13 armed with modern weapons of war would be comparable to a military detachment armed with muskets in 1789.
And yes, while suspension of habeas is mentioned in Article I, it’s only listed as a negative limitation. It doesn’t say only Congress can suspend habeas. Just like how when Article II says “the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” that doesn’t mean that Congress can’t also create independent agencies that exercise that power.
Or are you saying that Trump's policies on this issue are also so incompetent that law enforcement has now become overwhelmed?
There is no meta-principle by which you can say expansive, results-oriented interpretations are acceptable to move the lines in one direction but not the other. If emanations from penumbras is a valid interpretive methodology it’s valid for everything.