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.
Telescreens in your house would make it easier still. So I'll just answer "no, we shouldn't be."
A modern iphone or iPad or similar devices with it GPS, a camera, and ability to transmit your location , your messages and even your video to the corporate and governmental authorities to archive and analylize in real time or off line is the TELESCREEN of Oceania in all but name.
Smith, , Winston 970024, Yes You, You are not touching your toes, ,Look at ME I've had 4 children and I can touch my toes, people in your age group should be able to touch their toes, Your not trying hard enough, Just think what our boys are going through on the Malabar Front. Now lets try again.
Don't ask what someone knows or doesn't know or point to some vague webpage. You're avoiding defending your hypothesis.
You're about 100 years off. Just because the Court didn't put their stamp on something until 1964 does not mean the right did not exist.
The man was arrested in 1959 and faced the state court about 16 or so months later. When it got to the Supreme Court many years later the Court did not rule that going forward incorporation would be done. If they did they would have created new law and could not have found this dude not guilty.
The guy raised his rights in 1959 and the Supreme Court agreed with him in 1964. That has no bearing on incorporation or at lease how it is outlined in the case since you are only asking questions and not providing answers.
The right has existed since the bill of rights were ratified, what didn't exist was their applicability to the states - that was done as needed on an incremental basis by the supreme court after the 14th amendment was passed. In the case of this part of the 5th amendment, that was in 1864.
That is why incorporation is an important concept - especially when people are talking about what the framer's initially intended - that has become an entirely moot point, since the 14th amendment has so radically altered many aspects of how the other amendments and the constitution itself operates and is interpreted.
A vague web page? It was the specific USSC case that incorporated the privilege against self-incrimination - that's a vague we page, really?
Did you not read prior posts? The person I was talking to thought I was talking about Miranda Warnings.
The right has existed since the bill of rights were ratified, what didn't exist was their applicability to the states - that was done as needed on an incremental basis by the supreme court after the 14th amendment was passed. In the case of this part of the 5th amendment, that was in 1864.
That is why incorporation is an important concept - especially when people are talking about what the framer's initially intended - that has become an entirely moot point, since the 14th amendment has so radically altered many aspects of how the other amendments and the constitution itself operates and is interpreted.
A vague web page? It was the specific USSC case that incorporated the privilege against self-incrimination - that's a vague we page, really?
Did you not read prior posts? The person I was talking to thought I was talking about Miranda Warnings.
Everything above is correct but that's not the issue at hand. This is what you said:
So you agree with me that prior to 1964 the privilege against self incrimination part of the 5th amendment had not been incorporated against the states?
In plain English you are implying that incorporation did not happen until 1964. That is what is being disputed.
Everything above is correct but that's not the issue at hand. This is what you said:
So you agree with me that prior to 1964 the privilege against self incrimination part of the 5th amendment had not been incorporated against the states?
In plain English you are implying that incorporation did not happen until 1964. That is what is being disputed.
But it did, I linked the exact case to you - the one I believe you called a vague website.
I've been thinking about this with the NSA taps and now the thread on cops being allowed to seize your cellphone at the scene of an accident to see if you were texting. A lot of this is 4th Amendment stuff but what about the 5th?
I'm not talking about getting rid of the entire 5th, just the witness against yourself part. If you aren't guilty then what's there to hide? If you are guilty then if we take out the section in bold below it should help move cases through the system.
Maybe the reason to keep it is not due to guilt or not but in cases where evidence can be used against you as an inference to build a case where there isn't any hard evidence.
But besides that, what do you have to hide? Shouldn't we be looking at ways to make police and prosecutor's jobs easier?
Or maybe just disallow the non-direct use. Just hand over your cell phone and decrypt your hard drives and let your devices rat you out.
What do you think? And as a refresher I'm including the 4th below.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Says the may living in a city named for a dictator. You're mad at me because you can't defend things you've never read (The Constitution) and therefore you are looking for posts by me to attack me.
That's called ad hominem and yes some people get lots of rep points for trashing others and that seems to be very successful for you.
So far you've sent two replies in a row to me and not one mentioned a single fact. That is because you can not survive on facts. You only thrive on anger and derision.
That puts you on the far right I suppose since you aren't smug enough to be on the far left.
that would mean police can keep on questioning a person in custody even when he/she does not want to talk. its the requirement to be read your 5th rights that more have come into question rather than the 5th itself.
that would mean police can keep on questioning a person in custody even when he/she does not want to talk. its the requirement to be read your 5th rights that more have come into question rather than the 5th itself.
The reply that re-opened this thread was not to discuss the OP but to attack or bait me because the poster is mad at me. It's been dead for more than two weeks.
I do recommend to anyone that is reading to remember the 4th on the 4th. We need it back.
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.
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.
