Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (129156)	11/28/2000 4:29:54 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1583682

I agree that the court has been more serious about protecting constitutional rights in the 20th century, but it has gone beyond that by making up new rights that are supposedly based in the constitution. It also has mostly ignored the expansion of the federal government in to areas where it has not constituionally granted role or powers. This is not just a function of the court, obviously the executive and legislative branches had to move to get those powers, and they would not have done so if it the majority of the citizens of the US were steadfastly against it. As for Miranda it is not a direct constitutional right but rather a procedure invented by the court to help protect a constitutional right. There is nothing in the constitution that mandates anything like the Miranda warnings. I don't think Miranda warnings are a bad idea, but I think its was a bit stretch by the court to consider them constitutionally mandated. I would not be against either state laws mandating such a warning from law state or local law enforcement officers or a federal law mandating such a warning for federal law enforcement. Tim