Unbelievable.

I'm far too opinionated to call myself "apolitical," but maybe "politically agnostic" gets the point across? I grew up in a very Republican household, and I am to this day registered to vote as a Republican in the State of Arizona. But right now, neither political party is impressing me much. I get the feeling I'm not alone.

This post is not a rant against the two-party system. I just want you to know that I'm not spouting partisan criticism here. Because stupidity, clearly, knows no political affiliation.

Check this link for the long version. Or if you want to just read the juicy part, here's what completely freaks me out:

Attorney General: "There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a prohibition against taking it away."

Senator Specter: "Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's a rebellion or invasion?"

Attorney General: "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion."

Senator Specter: "You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense."

This stupidity comes from a graduate of Harvard Law School. A 1L more than two days into an introductory Constitutional Law course could tell you why this denial is completely beyond the pale.

Oh, that's me. Excellent.

The ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution explicitly address the idea that the Constitution does not grant rights. The Constitution enumerates powers, and these powers are only powers the federal government may legitimately exercise. What the Attorney General says is technically correct; his clever grin suggests that he knows his words are disingenuous. He presents to the Senate a deliberate misrepresentation.

At least that's my interpretation. It's possible that Alberto Gonzales is merely too stupid to understand why his words are so pathetic. It has been said, "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by mere stupidity." I'm not sure which is worse--an Attorney General who can't understand the Constitution, or an Attorney General who deliberately misunderstands the Constitution. Maybe that's why there's a corollary: "stupidity and malice need not be mutually exclusive."

It's scary that a man with such a flippant and/or uninformed attitude toward the Constitution has so much political power, but the same criticism could probably be made of many (or perhaps, heaven help us, most) D.C. politicians. I won't dwell on that one too long, because sadly I don't think it's a terribly new or surprising development, but there you have it.

I don't know, maybe I should be happy. If Gonzales can be the U.S. Attorney General with an apparently either a deficient education from Harvard or a deficient willingness to speak frankly and honestly, the sky is the limit to what a capable, honest attorney might accomplish.