Axelrod: Obama Open To Lossening Miranda (Video)

CNN ^ | 5/10/10 | David Axelrod

[Young Werther]

Hat's Off to Miranda!!

[Nachum]

The list, ping

[Loud Mime]

Why is Miranda even necessary? It should be part of the citizenship test, part of high school freshman year instruction, and then that’s that.

[Eva]

Remember, Eric Holder supported miranda rights for foreign terrorists, but now he wants to waive them for US citizens, accused of terrorism. Miranda rights insure that the suspect will not be abused by authorities without being represented by an attorney. Without the miranda rights, the police could lock you in a room and interrogate you for days before they allowed you access to an attorney. Obama doesn’t want this for foreign terrorists, just US citizens, who he deems to be a threat to HIS government.

[SJSAMPLE]

The Supremes don’t just get involved.

Obama has to change the current administration’s interpretation (redefine the Exigent Circumstances Rule) and administer it. Then, it gets challenged and heads for SCOTUS if it gets that far.

That’s how it’s always worked, with any constitutional challenge.

[Nevermore]

Calling it “settled law” is a mistake, since it’s not law but interpretation.

I am no lawyer - maybe you are - but my understanding is that an interpretation embodied in a court decision is law. It can change, but so can any man-made law. In that regard, asserting "settled law" is really subjective (perhaps a rhetorical attempt to cut off challenges?): it is only "settled" until the next decision or legislation or amendment.

For example, I believe Roe v Wade was a poor and unprincipled decision, but it is still the law - for now. And I would assert that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, and I would like to insist that it is "unsettled"; but it still IS law (sadly, just like Roe v Wade) until it is overturned or repealed.

Am I all wet?

[Vaduz]

Axelrod & Obama now on very thin ice.

[SJSAMPLE]

That would mean that any decision from a judge would be law.

I believe the term we're talking about is "case law", which describes the interpretation of existing law and provides precedent for future rulings. That is, unless future rulings determine that previous rulings ("settled law/case law") to be incorrect. Again, we're back to interpretation, but laws (the real ones) can only be written by the legislature and enacted by the executive branch, per our Constitution.

Either way, Exigent Circumstances to the Miranda Rule already exist and have been upheld. In cases were lives are on the line, a Miranda warning is not required. They just want to expand the definition of "Exigent Circumstances" and I'm OK with that, because I've always felt that your rights are not based upon somebody else's requirement to explain them to you. If you don't already know your rights, you don't have any.

[Freedom56v2]

This is not a light-hearted thread and has nothing to do with babes in bikinis. I may be the only one, but this is not amusing.

—perhaps you are in the wrong forum?

[Freedom56v2]

http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m5d11-Explosive-report-shows-Kagan-supports-censorship-of-TV-radio-posters-and-pamphlets

---

This opening of Miranda comes at same time dear leader has nominated a candidate for Supremes who may support censorship of TV, radio, posters, and pamphlets

Something Wicked This Way Comes....

[LibFreeUSA]

-"This is not a light-hearted thread and has nothing to do with babes in bikinis. I may be the only one, but this is not amusing."

Boy, you need to 'chill-out'.

[Freedom56v2]

Sorry, I don’t have much of a sense of humor when it comes to what is happening to our country and how it will be left for our children and yet-to-be-born grandkids.

I will chill-out in 2010 or 2012; but for now, I am serious and focused on our loss of liberties such as the loosening of Miranda rights.

[LibFreeUSA]

All being said - I fully support your ‘serious’ side to this post.

[Grunthor]

lossening?

[Freedom56v2]

Thanks—much appreciated. I just don’t find much levity in anything these days—I am hoping things change a lot in 2010! Till then, I will be vigilant and not have much of a sense of humor.