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: tejek who wrote (176773)	10/20/2003 7:05:51 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573556

The supreme court went far beyond the 5th amendment. The 5th amendment says "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." The relevant clause is "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". There is any number of ways that this could be enforced by courts or by legislatures (supervised by courts at least if they go to far). But the requirement for the Miranda warning is just one way to do this. The court didn't just overturn a conviction where 5th amendment rights where not respected and/or order the government to respect the rights or specifically put in place a system to guarantee the rights. The court didn't just say that it would overturn any conviction where the rights where not respected. The court made a specific and detailed requirement that was not in the constitution itself as a way of ensuring the rights. It effectively legislated from the bench. Actually I don't find the legislation in this case to be all that bad. Certainly congress has often done worse and so have courts but it is in effect the SC making a law, thus my comment in an earlier post about how the court de facto makes laws even though officially it does not. Tim