THE CONSTITUTION OFFERS No PROTECTION WITHOUT RECOURSE TO A REMEDY: WHY CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS IN A POSTCONVICTION PROCEEDING SHOULD BE COGNIZABLE IN A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS

Our legal system is replete with normative maxims but rarely absolute principles. Take for example Chief Justice Marshall's famous declaration in Marbury v. Madison: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."' This renowned phrase is seemingly an absolute principal, yet in practice, it is at best a normative maxim. Under prevailing law, state prisoners ensconced in their state habeas proceedings are held in exactly this position. They have vested rights protected by the Federal Constitution, which could be violated, and yet they seem to have no remedy available if and when such violations occur. The writ of habeas corpus is the only logical (and available) avenue to address these violations even if its use may be contrary to the prevailing legal perspective on the Great Writ.2 Is a writ of habeas corpus the vehicle to challenge constitutional errors in a postconviction proceeding? This question is largely unan-