Biden issues pre-emptive pardons in final hours for Anthony Fauci, Liz Cheney, Milley and others
- Thread starter Mr.Gr33k
- Start date
Until June 26, 2000, a person who was in custody and being subjected to police interrogation did not have a Constitutional right to be given Miranda warnings.
It was then added as a section of the Fifth Amendment (5.4.7.3)
https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default...t/5th-amendment/newestconstitutionalright.pdf
You should be more prudent with your use of quotations. It could be implied that you are quoting me. Of course, we know you are not quoting me.
From your post, one would get the mistaken idea that it is horrible and unprecedented that an Executive Order be issued and reviewed by the Supreme Court. Many times EOs are testing the boundaries of Executive authority as well as demonstrating a President's priorities. The EOs are often deemed invalid by the Court.
PS- As a sidebar, it's fun to watch some of our members twist themselves into strict constitutionalists.
Last edited:
??Are you talking USA or Canadian law? In USA you cannot add sections to a constitutional amendment. It would have to be it's own amendment passed by 3/4 of the states.
Miranda warnings were declared constitutional in 1966 Miranda v Arizona. There have been minor adjustments to Miranda since (eg the suspect has to explicitly say "I'm not talking" or that they invoking miranda or want an attorney or things to that effect. )
Legal language was not added to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Rather the Supreme Court reaffirmed Miranda warnings are necessary under the Fifth's right against self-incrimination.
Many EO's are challenged for being an improper or unreasonable exercise of the discretion delegated to the administration by the legislative branch. That is a standard challenge and very familiar and often successful.You should be more prudent with your use of quotations. It could be implied that you are quoting me. Of course, we know you are not quoting me.
From your post, one would get the mistaken idea that it is horrible and unprecedented that an Executive Order be issued and reviewed by the Supreme Court. Many times EOs are testing the boundaries of Executive authority as well as demonstrating a President's priorities. The EOs are often deemed invalid by the Court.
PS- As a sidebar, it's fun to watch some of our members twist themselves into strict constitutionalists.
However, I am not aware that any prior EO has blatantly - given the current overwhelming majority judicial and academic precedent - ignored the constitution on a major and fundamental tenet of law, as has this one. There is a large difference between the 2 categories that perhaps you overlook.
But I am always more than glad to assist, Earp.
Then it should be straightforward for the Supreme Court to reverse the Executive Order. Seems like a whole lot of fussing over something that will resolve itself in a short matter of time.
Last edited:
Before he even gets to that, how about he just narrow it down to "Guilty of what" first?
I assume this is all operating under the old "Clinton rules" ("We know they are guilty, we just have to figure out of what.") but maybe they've gotten a bit less ridiculous and now have actual, specific accusations.
Now, now.
Don't confuse him with facts.
"Vibes speak louder than actions" is the whole deal here, as you know.
What are you basing that on?
It's not in the text. The text just says "subject to the jurisdiction".
Originialism says that the plain meaning of the text is what matters.
The plain meaning is, of course, whatever the supreme court decides it is.
That's the glory of "originalism".
To create a political narrative.
Also to inconvenience and intimidate that person.
Possibly to bankrupt them as well in some cases.
To intimidate others who are not guilty so they don't get in your way in the future when you want to do things.
Knowing that even legal action in opposition will make life very hard for you will stop lots of people from even trying.
("Pour encourager les autres," as someone once put it.)
All kinds of reasons, as you can see.
Because diplomatic staff have diplomatic immunity and are not "subject to the jurisdiction".
It should be.
Just wondering if Justice Thomas will be taking any more expensive holidays in the next little while though.
They are working on it. I'm not sure how much of Miranda has been rendered null already.
Already accomplished for all intents and purposes.
I don't think Brown is used for much other than to strike down affirmative action anymore.
Nonsense.
Trump has said he intends to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in his inauguration speech Monday, so that's obviously good law still.
But that was just what the people who wrote it thought then.
That doesn't apply to what the people who will decide now will decide what the people who write it thought then thought.
Constitutional amendments are hard.
It is much easier to just continue as they have been proceeding, by re-interpreting what the constitution bits say to mean what they want them to say.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all." Yes, they do.
They aren't being coy about it.
Yeah, but I am guessing that the USSC doesn't want to make it THAT easy.
Because what if the "wrong sort of person" gets to be the Big Man???...... Then you're stuck with the precedent. (Which might not impede them, if your view of their level of cynicism is correct, I guess).
Diplomatic staff aren't at issue here, though.
Changing the definition to exclude more people doesn't affect diplomatic staff at all.
Sure they do.
They've always made it that easy.
"Does it accomplish my political goals while still remaining plausible enough in my eyes" is the standard.
That's why they often send rejected cases back with specific instructions about how to fix them enough to be plausible enough to get 5 votes.
"The definition is wrong, we will clarify the ambiguity" is very easy to get to.
Now, Roberts probably doesn't like Trump going "Fuck you, do what I want even if it makes it super obvious", but he doesn't hold the swing vote anymore in lots of cases.
But he's also approaching retirement and has shown he isn't going to push back on everything just for tone reasons.
So the question is what Gorsuch and Barrett feel about it. If they are both good with it, it doesn't matter what Roberts wants and he probably votes with them.
If it is more dicey, who knows?
You misunderstand.
If you're writing a piece of legislation to state that everyone born inside the borders of your country automatically has citizenship at birth, except diplomatic staff, that's exactly how you'd write it.
So we conclude from that the following: - everyone born inside the borders of your country automatically has citizenship at birth, except diplomatic staff.
Which is exactly how it's traditionally been interpreted.
Because illegal residents are still subject to the jurisdiction of your country because legal systems are territorially based - unless someone has diplomatic immunity.
You are trying to say there is no good faith argument to interpret it other than you are interpreting it.
Which is easily countered by the fact that one - these aren't good faith arguments and two - you just point to any debate at the original signing wherein they offered alternate meanings or clarifications, even if they didn't make it into the final text.
After all, it WAS brought to court before, which means it was in dispute.
And the decision wasn't unanimous.
And in it, they made reference to both his parents having the same status.
That means it is undecided that it meant the same if they had different statuses.
This is a court that freely fucked around and cited witch-hunting literature in a decision just recently.
It completely re-interpreted the second amendment.
These are not serious hurdles you are throwing up here.
