>On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:59:37 -0500, atheist@home.com, wrote:
>

>>On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:39:52 -0400, Apostate
>>yeehaw.org.invalid> wrote:
>>

>>>On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:09:58 -0500, atheist@home.com, wrote:
>>>

>

>>>>Suspension of Habeas Corpus under any but the specified instances
>>>>would also have been illegal

>>>
>>>You equivocate.

>>
>>No.
>>

>>>Parking in a handicapped stall without proper authorization is illegal. It isn't usually a
>>>crime, and certainly never a High Crime. (Just the same, if getting a blowjob from a not all
>>>that bright intern is impeachable, so can illegal parking be.)

>>
>>Parking in a handicap stall doesn't attain the level of a suspension
>>of Habeas Corpus.

>
>But the sense in which doing the latter would constitute a crime is in the broader sense of
>"crime" ("It's a crime that ageing singers don't notice that their chief claim to fame, their
>voice, is in the past.") Find the federal statute that tells you whether breaking the Habeus
>Corpus contract with society is a felony, a misdemeanor, or a mere infraction, and you'll have
>an argument.
>
>

>>High crimes in general referred to "crimes" committed by those at high
>>levels and in the terms of the times was understood to mean "against
>>the state."

>

>>And there was no need at the time to define Habeas Corpus because the
>>definition was well understood.

>
>Habeus was inherited. A law treating its dishonoring punitively is entirely a different
>matter. It would have been a "High Crime" while being, in penal terms, no crime at all, to
>blow off the Magna Carta and everything since that was not enacted into law in the new
>nation, even if firmly esconced in English law.
>