U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-08-2019, 02:49 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,555 posts, read 1,545,851 times
Reputation: 3998

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by subaru5555 View Post
Except they didn’t “rewrite the constitution” as you so frivolously claim.......
They put a passage into the Constitution that clearly wasn't in it.

IOW, they rewrote it.

Where in the Constitution does it say that cops must inform suspects of their rights?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-08-2019, 02:53 PM
 
Location: AZ
2,360 posts, read 490,975 times
Reputation: 1032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
They put a passage into the Constitution that clearly wasn't in it.

IOW, they rewrote it.

Where in the Constitution does it say that cops must inform suspects of their rights?
How is a SCOTUS ruling “re-writing the constitution”? Curious minds would like to know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 03:00 PM
 
15,669 posts, read 8,084,102 times
Reputation: 8080
Quote:
Originally Posted by subaru5555 View Post
How is a SCOTUS ruling “re-writing the constitution”? Curious minds would like to know.
I'd also like to know....

OP you should bow out of this. We understand you don't understand civics but you are coming off looking very bad in the thread. It is kind of sad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Massachusetts
2,043 posts, read 3,860,957 times
Reputation: 3580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
They put a passage into the Constitution that clearly wasn't in it.

IOW, they rewrote it.

Where in the Constitution does it say that cops must inform suspects of their rights?
Much of the Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution as it applies to specific situations, policies or procedures. There is no way the Constitution could have included instructions for government with respect to how a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is implicated in every situation.

Examples are everywhere but Citizens United comes immediately to mind. The Constitution doesn't explicitly state that corporations have a Constitutional right to be able to make political contributions. But the Supreme Court determined that the right of free speech applied to that situation and that corporations have the right to make political contributions.

You can argue about the reasoning of Miranda but that is a different discussion. The fact that the Constitution doesn't expressly require the rights be read is not a compelling argument since most of the rights we enjoy from the Constitution are based on interpretation rather than a bullet list of dos and don'ts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Itinerant
6,558 posts, read 4,302,713 times
Reputation: 5007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
They put a passage into the Constitution that clearly wasn't in it.

IOW, they rewrote it.

Where in the Constitution does it say that cops must inform suspects of their rights?
It didn't. However suspects always had the right to not self incriminate.

Miranda only explicitly informs suspects of their guaranteed rights at time of arrest. It doesn't change anything, so it's not a rewrite.

Suspects have always had a right to silence, they always had a right to sn attorney, the police would always use whatever evidence you supply against you.

So nothing's changed, you're just told everything you should already know.
__________________
My mod posts will always be in red.
The RulesInfractions & DeletionsWho's the moderator? • FAQ • What is a "Personal Attack" • What is "Trolling" • Guidelines for copyrighted material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 03:44 PM
 
5,593 posts, read 1,119,657 times
Reputation: 2211
From the Wikipedia page of "Ernesto Miranda": "Ernesto Arturo Miranda (March 9, 1941 – January 31, 1976) was a laborer whose conviction on kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery charges based on his confession under police interrogation was set aside in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which ruled that criminal suspects must be informed of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney before being questioned by police. This warning is known as a Miranda warning."

Rather abhorrent a convicted rapist was the basis for the Miranda warnings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 04:12 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,555 posts, read 1,545,851 times
Reputation: 3998
Quote:
Originally Posted by subaru5555 View Post
How is a SCOTUS ruling “re-writing the constitution”? Curious minds would like to know.
(patiently)

Read what you quoted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 04:13 PM
 
2,763 posts, read 925,481 times
Reputation: 1933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
Does Article 3 mean that SCOTUS can rewrite the Constitution willy-nilly whenever they want (as the did in the Miranda decision)?

No. The USSC did NOT do its Constitutionally mandated duty. It abrogated that duty.
You can have your opinion, but it is up to the SCOTUS, not Roboteer, to determine constitutionality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 04:17 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,555 posts, read 1,545,851 times
Reputation: 3998
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
I'd also like to know....

OP you should bow out of this. We understand you don't understand civics but you are coming off looking very bad in the thread. It is kind of sad.
TRANSLATION: I can't refute the fact that the Constitution contains no requirement for cops to explain suspects' right to them and so there is no such requirement. So I'll attack the messenger instead, try to prevent him from talking about it, and hope that somebody believes me somewhere instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 04:19 PM
miu
 
Location: MA/NH
17,291 posts, read 34,965,482 times
Reputation: 16516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
Geesh, indeed. What a dumb idea.

How in the hell is a police officer in Jurisdiction A, State A supposed to know that a suspect has had their rights read to them two years ago by a police officer in Jurisdiction B, State B? If there is no arrest, there is no official record of the suspect being informed of their rights. I doubt Jurisdiction B, State B is sharing with police departments nationwide the fact that in 2016 they detained a person under suspicion for a crime but let that person go 20 minutes later because no crime had been committed by that person.
How about, in case a career criminal is apprehended, and somehow the police officer forgot to read him his Miranda rights... his testimony can't be thrown out of court if he was told his Miranda rights before. And shouldn't everyone already know their Miranda rights? In every crime show on tv, the criminals are told their rights. It should also be taught in high school too.

Anyway, my point was, that everyone should know their Miranda rights. And not being told them, shouldn't be grounds for throwing out confessions. We need to get tougher on criminals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top