But is it not true that when the Constitution was written, it made provision for the habeas corpus, that it would never interpret it as applying to enemy combatants that were captured on the battlefield?

I think you're calling us to a higher level of discussion on these issues because they go to the core of who we are as Americans.

I think, for the record, a number of significant articles should be in the record.

I do think that the scheme you arranged for this hearing is good, the way we have gone forward.

I have seen some of that in our Committee. Could you briefly give me this answer and see if I am correct?

I believe we have tried to meet our goal. I had a goal at the beginning and people would say this is one of the most fair and effective hearings we have ever had.

I expect this hearing and resulting debate will be characterized by a respectful tone.

The fiat of a government official, though senior in rank and doubtless honorable, cannot displace the judicial obligation to enforce constitutional requirements.

Under no circumstances should the judiciary become the handmaiden of the executive.

What I found was that charges come flying in from right and left that are unsupported and false.

Mr. Halbrook, you wrote the brief on behalf of 55 Senators in the Heller case and your view, I guess, was accepted.

If you respect the Constitution, if you clearly respect it, you will enforce it as it is written.

I think that is something that we should take seriously. That was a valid comment.

I think we have a--this is a big issue and I--in your opinion, you said it was settled law.

I hope this will be viewed as the best hearing this Committee has ever had.

Our former chairman, Senator Hatch. He's given us a definition for a number of years, and that is when a judge allows their personal, political, or other biases to overcome their commitment to the rule of law.

I think it was in violation of the rule, in my judgment as a practicing lawyer.

President Bush actually relied on the historic interpretation.

I said I wanted to vote for it, and we did. We extended it for probably longer than we should have.

It's a problem for people. We ask about abortion. It's not explicitly referred to in the Constitution, but you say that's a fundamental right.

If the decision by Judge Sotomayor becomes law, any city--maybe not Vermont, but any city or State in America could virtually, I believe, fully ban all firearms.

But I do think, as Justice Roberts said, the best way to end discrimination is quit doing it.

I think you've handled this well throughout, and I support you 100 percent.

I think the foreign law matter is a big deal to me.

Regardless of whether or not the precedent justified the decision in Maloney, and I think we can argue about that, but the point is that decision would eviscerate effectively the protection, the constitutional protection to keep and bear…