SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (79559)5/6/2010 5:15:20 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 90947
 
Government of Laws

By: Mark Krikorian
The Corner

Sure, he was a progressive, but TR could write:

No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we
ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it.
Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as
a favor.

(Gov. Jan Brewer quoted him in that piece Kathryn linked to defending the new Arizona immigration law.)


.



To: Sully- who wrote (79559)5/6/2010 5:20:41 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 90947
 
Re: Miranda and Citizenship

By: Andy McCarthy
The Corner

Ramesh, I would think the only credible argument that the Constitution does not require Miranda -- at least for any arrest inside the United States -- would be made by people whose point is to state what the Constitution requires as an abstract proposition rather than as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Assuming that we accept the premise that the Constitution requires what the Supreme Court says it requires, I don't see how, after the Dickerson case (which I wrote about here), anyone could contend with a straight face that Miranda is not required.

Don't get me wrong. I think Dickerson is an awful decision -- and, indeed, that Miranda is an awful decision. I'd also rather see a system where a super majority of Congress can overrule bad Supreme Court decisions. But what I think doesn't matter. The Supreme Court says Miranda is required, period.


.