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: i-node who wrote (176753)	10/17/2003 12:27:26 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573504

The Miranda Act and the Cohan Rule were put into law with legislation, and not by the SC. I can't believe how ignorant you are. The requirement for a Miranda warning was created by the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). This decision created the requirement for the Miranda warning. Period. caselaw.lp.findlaw.com; ******************************************************* In response to your post: <font color=brown> "The Constitution of the United States of America is not only a Common Law document, the Supreme Law/Common Law of the Land, and the actual government of the United States, but is also superior to all administrative laws, rules and regulations and their administrative law, rules and regulations must be in compliance with and in conformity to the Constitution of and for the United States of America; "Where rights are secured by Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda Vs. Ariz. 384 U.S. 436 at 491(1966)."<font color=black> f-f-a.com If you read the above or if read your link a little more closely, you would see that no legislation was required re. the Miranda Act because the Supreme Court only was reaffirming and clarifying what already existed in the Constitution, specifically in the fifth amendment. From your link: <font color=blue>"1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 444-491. (a) The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating and works to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice. Pp. 445-458. (b) The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system and guarantees to the individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a period of custodial interrogation [384 U.S. 436, 437] as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations. Pp. 458-465. (c) The decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , stressed the need for protective devices to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege. Pp. 465-466. (d) In the absence of other effective measures the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed**: The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Pp. 467-473. "<font color=black> No new legislation was created because the basis for the Miranda Act already was in the Constitution. The SC did not create new law but rather clarified and refined existing law. It also negated any state or local laws that ran counter to the 5th amendment privilege. <font color=red>I appear ignorant only because your knowledge is somewhat limited. Next time do your homework BEFORE you open your big yap!