Did Congress’ official Constitution site just delete references to parts of Article 1?

06 August

House Speaker Mike Johnson at the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on July 15, 2024 (Maxim Elramsisy/Shutterstock.com)

Archive searches suggest the White House has scrubbed Sections 9 and 10 pertaining to Habeas Corpus and judicial review of unlawful detention from the official congressional website on the Constitution.

“Does this regime think that by editing the website they can delete these basic rights, or do they just want to make it harder to read about them?” demanded one commenter on Resistbot.

A quick scan of the site's constitutional summaries from Aug. 6 do not match more thorough archived shots of the same page from May. Among missing texts are summaries for Sections 9 and 10. Section 9 contains language pertaining to Habeas Corpus, including: “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.”

Section 10 outlines the rights (and limitations of rights) of states regarding organizing, particularly organizing against the federal government. “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

In addition to missing summaries of these Constitutional sections are detailed pages on Section 9 and Section 10. The page for Section 10, on July 15, for example, contained individual notes and entries on that section, including clauses. Today, a user visiting that same address will get a portrait of George Washington and a: “Page Not Found. Sorry, the page you're looking for does not exist” and a link back to the homepage. The same goes for the dedicated page for Section 9. Searches indicate the government site was modified July 17.

“That is not a good sign,” posted one commenter on Blue Sky.

“I don't have enough variations on 'f——' to express my feelings about this. Please help,” said another Blue Sky user.

Critics say the Trump administration has run up against the Section 9 portion of the Constitution and its Habeas corpus inclusion. Originally imported to the Constitution from English common law, the language was used to ensure the king of England released prisoners when the law did not justify confining them.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has claimed during a committee hearing that the constitutional provision is a tool the administration can use in its broader crackdown at the U.S.-Mexico border, claiming it to be “a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their rights.”

“That’s incorrect,” said Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H), an attorney, who then explained to Noem that it is actually a “legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people.”

Hassan went on to describe it as “the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea.”

The White House did not immediately respond to emails.

From Your Site Articles