Removing a Section of the US Constitution: Is the Trump Administration Seeking Control of the Library of Congress?
In a controversial development, the Library of Congress removed a section of the U.S. Constitution from its digital version, specifically the part that guarantees individuals the right to challenge the legality of their detention and requires the government to justify reasons for imprisonment. This incident, later described as a "technical glitch," occurred at a time when former President Donald Trump is seeking to assert control over the Library of Congress.
Stephen Miller, who served as Deputy Chief of Staff in the White House, had publicly suggested the possibility of suspending "habeas corpus" to support the President's efforts to arrest and deport immigrants, claiming this option was being seriously considered in "invasion cases." In a related context, Kristi Noem, who leads Trump's mass deportation campaign, attempted to describe habeas corpus as a "constitutional right of the President that enables him to remove people from this country," an interpretation entirely contrary to the purpose of this right.
To understand the importance of this principle, "Habeas Corpus", a Latin phrase meaning "bring the body," is defined as a judicial writ enabling a detainee to appear before a court to determine the legality of their detention. This right, whose roots trace back to English law and the Magna Carta of 1215, is a cornerstone in protecting individual liberties from any arbitrary detention by the executive authority, as indicated by Cornell Law School.
In recent weeks, Section Nine of Article One of the Constitution, which states that "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," disappeared from the "Annotated Constitution" page on the Library of Congress website.
By the following morning, officials in the Trump administration informally informed their staff that the deletion was a result of a "glitch," according to informed sources. Consequently, staff moved quickly to fix the issue and investigate its causes, in addition to reviewing other sections of the website to ensure there were no similar deletions.
This deletion, which coincided with the Trump administration's potential targeting of constitutional sections described as seeking to "tear them up," raised doubts about the credibility of the "glitch" explanation. The Library of Congress confirmed via its X (formerly Twitter) account that the deletion resulted from a "coding error."
The website also added a banner explaining that "The Annotated Constitution website is currently experiencing data issues. We are working to resolve this problem and apologize for the inconvenience." By the afternoon, the deleted sections of the Constitution were restored to the webpage. The Library of Congress confirmed in an email that "Due to a technical error, some sections of Article One were temporarily missing from the Annotated Constitution website. The issue has been corrected, and the missing sections restored."
It should be noted that merely deleting paragraphs from the U.S. Constitution on a webpage — especially for an institution not considered the official guardian of the Constitution — does not change U.S. law. However, regardless of what the document states, the President and his senior officials have expressed their intention to violate the Constitution as much as they can.
This amendment to the Constitution's website comes at a time when Trump is attempting to assert control over the Library of Congress, even though the agency is technically part of the legislative branch. The Library serves as the research arm of Congress, holding the world's largest collection of books, manuscripts, maps, photographs, and recordings.
In May, Trump announced his intention to dismiss Carla Hayden, the Librarian of Congress, before her 10-year term ended, replacing her with Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously served as Trump's personal lawyer. After a judge refused to block Hayden's dismissal, she filed an appeal last week with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
UPDATE: This article has been updated to include a comment from the Library of Congress and to note that the apparent technical error has been fixed.
myhome
https://www.aymany.com/
