Where in the Constitution does it say Miranda warnings are required?

[Little-Acorn]

The so-called "Miranda rights" themselves, are spelled out in the Constitution, of course. Anyone accused in a criminal trial or proceeding, has the right to remain silent, the right to a lawyer, and if he can't afford a lawyer one will be provided for him by the state; and all the rest. These are very valuable rights, and it's an excellent idea for the country to stick to them. And, being part of the Constitution, they are the Law of the Land... which is as it should be.

But where in the Constitution does it say that, when the cops arrest somebody, they must transform into schoolteachers and explain those rights to the suspect?

Being a citizen, carries certain responsibilities. and they are the citizen's responsibilities, not the cops'. Knowing what the basic laws are, is one of those responsibilities. God help you if you try to memorize the entire Federal Register every year, with its 60,000-plus pages of new laws. But it's up to you to know at least the basic stuff... such as what the Constitution protects.

If you walk into a bank, stick a gun in the teller's face, grab a bunch of cash, and run out... and a cop grabs you and arrests you... is he required to tell you that sticking a gun in the teller's face and grabbing the cash, is illegal? Is he required to warn you that if you slug the cop afterward, you will be in even more trouble? No. Those things are certainly true, but he is not required to tell you so. And if you slug him without being told it's illegal, and he slams you down onto the ground and cuffs you without explaining why, your case does NOT get thrown out of court for the lack of "Slug-a-cop" warnings.

So why does evidence get thrown out for the lack of "Right to remain silent" warnings?

If you ask for a lawyer and he refuses to get you one, and goes on questioning you, then that evidence most certainly should be thrown out, and if the cops lose the case, that's just too damned bad. That's as it should be.

But if he never mentions your right to have a lawyer, and asks you questions and you answer them, and then you ask for a lawyer and he stops questioning you and DOES get you a lawyer, where in the Constitution does it say that the evidence from those first questions must be thrown out?

The so-called "Miranda warnings" are a complete fabrication, and have no place in American jurispridence or police work. I know, the Supreme Court said they were mandatory, in the case by the same name. But the Supreme Court once said "separate but equal" segregated facilities for black people, were just fine, too. They were wrong both times.

You are responsible for knowing the basic law, and your fundamental rights. The cops are not responsible for becoming your schoolteacher - nowhere in the Constitution does it even hint that they are, despite what the Supreme Court once wishfully thought.

Your right to remain silent, to have a lawyer, and all the rest, are one of the cornerstones of American freedon, protected by the Constitution, and must NEVER be compromised or infringed.

Your right to have cops explain that to you, is not, nor should it be.

[SpidermanTUba]

The so-called "Miranda rights" themselves, are spelled out in the Constitution, of course. Anyone accused in a criminal trial or proceeding, has the right to remain silent, the right to a lawyer, and if he can't afford a lawyer one will be provided for him by the state; and all the rest. These are very valuable rights, and it's an excellent idea for the country to stick to them. And, being part of the Constitution, they are the Law of the Land... which is as it should be.

But where in the Constitution does it say that, when the cops arrest somebody, they must transform into schoolteachers and explain those rights to the suspect?

Being a citizen, carries certain responsibilities. and they are the citizen's responsibilities, not the cops'. Knowing what the basic laws are, is one of those responsibilities. God help you if you try to memorize the entire Federal Register every year, with its 60,000-plus pages of new laws. But it's up to you to know at least the basic stuff... such as what the Constitution protects.

If you walk into a bank, stick a gun in the teller's face, grab a bunch of cash, and run out... and a cop grabs you and arrests you... is he required to tell you that sticking a gun in the teller's face and grabbing the cash, is illegal? Is he required to warn you that if you slug the cop afterward, you will be in even more trouble? No. Those things are certainly true, but he is not required to tell you so. And if you slug him without being told it's illegal, and he slams you down onto the ground and cuffs you without explaining why, your case does NOT get thrown out of court for the lack of "Slug-a-cop" warnings.

So why does evidence get thrown out for the lack of "Right to remain silent" warnings?

If you ask for a lawyer and he refuses to get you one, and goes on questioning you, then that evidence most certainly should be thrown out, and if the cops lose the case, that's just too damned bad. That's as it should be.

But if he never mentions your right to have a lawyer, and asks you questions and you answer them, and then you ask for a lawyer and he stops questioning you and DOES get you a lawyer, where in the Constitution does it say that the evidence from those first questions must be thrown out?

The so-called "Miranda warnings" are a complete fabrication, and have no place in American jurispridence or police work. I know, the Supreme Court said they were mandatory, in the case by the same name. But the Supreme Court once said "separate but equal" segregated facilities for black people, were just fine, too. They were wrong both times.

You are responsible for knowing the basic law, and your fundamental rights. The cops are not responsible for becoming your schoolteacher - nowhere in the Constitution does it even hint that they are, despite what the Supreme Court once wishfully thought.

Your right to remain silent, to have a lawyer, and all the rest, are one of the cornerstones of American freedon, protected by the Constitution, and must NEVER be compromised or infringed.

Your right to have cops explain that to you, is not, nor should it be.




Have you read the Supreme Court opinion on this issue? You should start there if you really want answers. If you don't really want answers and just wanna bitch - maybe you can tell me where in the Constitution it says the President is Commander in Chief of the Air Force? It doesn't! So this means Air Force members don't have to salute the President.

[Mr. P]

I don't have a problem with Miranda. It does one very important thing:

It closes legal loop holes that would result in no conviction.

I don't see this as teaching rights at all. I see it as strengthening a legal case.

[Little-Acorn]

I don't have a problem with Miranda. It does one very important thing:

It closes legal loop holes that would result in no conviction.

I don't see this as teaching rights at all. I see it as strengthening a legal case.

???????????????

It does exactly the opposite.

It OPENS legal loopholes that result in no conviction, even in the face of an open and voluntary confession, admission where the body is buried, etc.

[CSM]

Have you read the Supreme Court opinion on this issue? You should start there if you really want answers. If you don't really want answers and just wanna bitch - maybe you can tell me where in the Constitution it says the President is Commander in Chief of the Air Force? It doesn't! So this means Air Force members don't have to salute the President.

heh...I would love to see some Air Force officer refuse to salute the President based on Constitutional grounds! The National Security Act of 1947 might make justification for such behavior a little difficult to explain, however.

[Mr. P]

???????????????

It does exactly the opposite.

It OPENS legal loopholes that result in no conviction, even in the face of an open and voluntary confession, admission where the body is buried, etc.

I disagree. Admission to a location of a body does not a murder make.
Remember, the "burden" of proof is on the state.

EDIT: add to the buren that the state can't trample constitutional rights in the attemp to convict..so Miranda, in a way prevents, a Police state.

[HogTrash]

Jury Nullification, although little known and rarely invoked, has always been a favorite of mine.


jury nullification
A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. It espouses the concept that jurors should be the judges of both law and fact.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Jury+nullification

[Mr. P]

Jury Nullification, although little known and rarely invoked, has always been a favorite of mine.

Mine too!!

[avatar4321]

The Constitution doesn't say Miranda warnings are required.

However, as long as the Case law does I am going to continue use them to free my clients if the opportunity arises since I am obligated by the law and ethics to do so.. (It really doesn't come up that much).

[LuvRPgrl]

Have you read the Supreme Court opinion on this issue? You should start there if you really want answers. If you don't really want answers and just wanna bitch - maybe you can tell me where in the Constitution it says the President is Commander in Chief of the Air Force? It doesn't! So this means Air Force members don't have to salute the President.

I thought the PResident was Commander In Chief of the "armed forces" of which the Air Force is a part of?

[SpidermanTUba]

I thought the PResident was Commander In Chief of the "armed forces" of which the Air Force is a part of?

Then I guess you haven't read the Constitution.

[LuvRPgrl]

Then I guess you haven't read the Constitution.

You guess wrong. Mine was a serious question

[SpidermanTUba]

You guess wrong. Mine was a serious question

If you were serious you would have looked it up yourself. Not sure why I have to do this for you.


The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

The Air Force is not part of the Army. It used to be but was split into a separate branch of service following shortly after WW II.

[LuvRPgrl]

If you were serious you would have looked it up yourself. Not sure why I have to do this for you.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

The Air Force is not part of the Army. It used to be but was split into a separate branch of service following shortly after WW II.

and when that split occured, who was assigned command over it?

You did that for me cuz your my lapdog :)

[Gaffer]

and when that split occured, who was assigned command over it?

You did that for me cuz your my lapdog :)

Gotta spread the rep around. Stupidtuba can't seem to grasp that the Air Force is part of the Armed Services. As is the Coast Guard. :lol:

[SpidermanTUba]

and when that split occured, who was assigned command over it?

You did that for me cuz your my lapdog :)

I fail to see how that changes the fact the Constitution does not say the President is Commander-In-Chief of the Air Force. Please explain.

[SpidermanTUba]

Gotta spread the rep around. Stupidtuba can't seem to grasp that the Air Force is part of the Armed Services. As is the Coast Guard. :lol:

Where did I say it wasn't? All I have stated is that the Constitution does not say that the President is Commander-In-Chief of the Air Force. You people have severe reading comprehension problems.

[82Marine89]

Where did I say it wasn't? All I have stated is that the Constitution does not say that the President is Commander-In-Chief of the Air Force. You people have severe reading comprehension problems.

I guess that means he is only in charge of the militia for the original 13 colonies as well? The other 37 don't have to listen to him?

[SpidermanTUba]

I guess that means he is only in charge of the militia for the original 13 colonies as well? The other 37 don't have to listen to him?

Why would it?

[82Marine89]

Why would it?

Don't you read what you post?


The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

According to your logic that means only the original 13 States. Anything thereafter does not apply. Correct?

[Mr. P]

Why would it?

Because it doesn't say all 57 states. :laugh2:

That's yer flawed premise regarding the Air force isn't it? It doesn't say it so let's debate it. :laugh2:

[revelarts]

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YXzrzE-3vsQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YXzrzE-3vsQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[SpidermanTUba]

Don't you read what you post?


According to your logic that means only the original 13 States. Anything thereafter does not apply. Correct?

My logic? Not my logic. Look at the subject heading of this thread. That's the logic it is.

[82Marine89]

My logic? Not my logic. Look at the subject heading of this thread. That's the logic it is.

Yes Kleetus, your logic. You changed it from Miranda to the Air Force and what the Constitution does and does not say. You played the semantics game and when I turned your post around on you, you defer to the title of the thread and say it wasn't anything you did. Half a brain and your ass would be lopsided.

[SpidermanTUba]

Yes Kleetus, your logic. You changed it from Miranda to the Air Force and what the Constitution does and does not say. You played the semantics game and when I turned your post around on you, you defer to the title of the thread and say it wasn't anything you did. Half a brain and your ass would be lopsided.

Man you are slow.

[Little-Acorn]

Clearly, the Constitution does not require police to turn into schoolteachers and inform a suspect of his rights, though it certainly requires them to uphold those rights, exactly as it should.

Nor does it require that cases be dismissed when a suspect is not informed of his rights. Cases should only be dismissed, or evidence thrown out, only when the police don't uphold his rights. By questioning him after he asks for a lawyer but before the lawyer gets there, for example; or threatening him and sweating a confession out of him, etc. Policemen can and should be put in jail themselves for doing such things; and the evidence obtained thereby, thrown out.

[revelarts]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/somd5NYscSw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/somd5NYscSw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[LuvRPgrl]

I fail to see how that changes the fact the Constitution does not say the President is Commander-In-Chief of the Air Force. Please explain.

Please answer this directly, or you are just playing games.

To whom does the Constitution give that power?

[82Marine89]

Please answer this directly, or you are just playing games.

To whom does the Constitution give that power?

He's retarded.

[SassyLady]

He's retarded.

And those who continue to debate with him would be .........??? :slap:

Couldn't help myself 82!!! :laugh2:

[SpidermanTUba]

Clearly, the Constitution does not require police to turn into schoolteachers and inform a suspect of his rights, though it certainly requires them to uphold those rights, exactly as it should.

How? If the suspect doesn't know he has the right to remain silent, he may as well not have that right?



Nor does it require that cases be dismissed when a suspect is not informed of his rights. Of course not. Failure to Mirandize someone can only result in the dismissal of evidence. For instance, if you fail to Mirandize someone and they confess to the crime during interrogation, the confession is not admissible. You may still prosecute based on other, legally obtained evidence, however.

[SpidermanTUba]

Please answer this directly, or you are just playing games.

To whom does the Constitution give that power?

What power? The Constitution does not specify anyone is Commander-In-Chief of the Air Force.

[82Marine89]

And those who continue to debate with him would be .........??? :slap:

Couldn't help myself 82!!! :laugh2:

It's kind of like working at the Special Olympics. :laugh2:

[LuvRPgrl]

What power? The Constitution does not specify anyone is Commander-In-Chief of the Air Force.

SO, it doesnt PRECLUDE the PResident from having that power?

[SpidermanTUba]

SO, it doesnt PRECLUDE the PResident from having that power?

It doesn't preclude the President from having just about any power. Does that mean he can order that all people with red shoes on be executed?

[82Marine89]

It doesn't preclude the President from having just about any power. Does that mean he can order that all people with red shoes on be executed?

This President? With lemmings like you sucking the stink from his farts he probably could.

[revelarts]

What power? The Constitution does not specify anyone is Commander-In-Chief of the Air Force.


"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;..."

the Airforce began as a part of the ARMY. The president does have command of the ARMY and any branches or children the Army might spin off don't you think?


And in general the Constitution specifically lays out what Powers the the president, congress and the supreme court have been granted by the people.
If it's not in there they don't have it. The people have all the rights and including to remain silent the even if it's not included in the constitution. Only if it's against the law are the rights a citizens rights limited. Not if it's "granted" to us in the constitution. Authority is granted to the gov't from the people not the other way around. Rights are grant by God to the people and not by the Gov't.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[LuvRPgrl]

It doesn't preclude the President from having just about any power. Does that mean he can order that all people with red shoes on be executed?

It actually precludes him from many things. Laws regarding red shoes being illegal are unconstitutional.

Now, to stay on topic, since it doesnt preclude him from having control over the air force, how are we breaking the laws of the land by giving that power to him?

He still doesnt have any power over the other two arms of govt, judicial and legislative, so the balance of power remains

[-Cp]

If you were serious you would have looked it up yourself. Not sure why I have to do this for you.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

The Air Force is not part of the Army. It used to be but was split into a separate branch of service following shortly after WW II.

The National Security Act of 1947 made the President, as a consequence of the creation of the United States Air Force, also the Commander-in-Chief of that branch of the armed forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947

[Little-Acorn]

How? If the suspect doesn't know he has the right to remain silent, he may as well not have that right?
Whose fault is that? (hint: not the police's, or the government's.)

Citizenship carries with it responsibilities. Including the responsibility to learn what your basic rights are.

This is not a difficult task in this country.

But if someone doesn't take care of his own responsibilities, again whose fault is it?

(The answer to this question, points out one of the fundamental differences between conservatives and socialist liberals.)

[SpidermanTUba]

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;..."

the Airforce began as a part of the ARMY.

Its no longer part of the Army.



The president does have command of the ARMY and any branches or children the Army might spin off don't you think?


Yes, but it doesn't say it explicitly in the Constitution. Its implied.

[LuvRPgrl]

Its no longer part of the Army.




Yes, but it doesn't say it explicitly in the Constitution. Its implied.so, whats your beef?