Unconstitutional Miranda Reading?

[taft2012]

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-Wrong-Standards-for-Tsarnaev

Lost in the whole Miranda warning issued to Tsarnaev is this (at least I didn't see it right away):



Now the news comes that the person who actually read the Miranda warning to Tsarnaev wasn't even an FBI agent, but a U.S. magistrate judge (magistrate judges are sort of like junior federal judges -- they are appointed by the courts to assist them, but they are not real judges, and are subject to revision by real federal judges).


This is an outright violation of the separation of powers. It is not for federal judges, or worse yet their assistants, to rove around looking for criminal cases in which to act as law enforcement agents. The decision whether to read Miranda lies up to the executive branch. The right of the courts to affect the warnings and conditions of interrogation stems only from their control over the criminal trial of the suspect. Miranda itself is only a declaration by the courts that they will exclude from evidence any confessions received without a warning. Under the Constitution, the President is responsible for the enforcement of the laws, not the courts -- the courts' constitutional job is to decide cases and controversies that arise under those laws.


But the Obama Administration apparently did not protest very hard against this violation of the separation of powers. And we can see why.

How was it this guy's business to get involved in this?

Why did those guarding Tsarnaev even let this guy in to do this?

Who authorized it?

[DragonStryk72]

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-Wrong-Standards-for-Tsarnaev

Lost in the whole Miranda warning issued to Tsarnaev is this (at least I didn't see it right away):



How was it this guy's business to get involved in this?

Why did those guarding Tsarnaev even let this guy in to do this?

Who authorized it?

Because citizen's arrests are still, in point of fact, legal? Because free speech is still a thing here, and thus, he can say whatever he pleases?

Now, reading the Miranda Rights was unnecessary, but the cops should have read him the rights again when he was being booked. And yes, if he was being arrested, terrorist or "enemy combatant" (a fucking coward's term), then yes, he should be apprised of his rights under the law. What reasonable person could possibly take issue with this?

[taft2012]

What reasonable person could possibly take issue with this?

The US Supreme Court could and has taken issue with it. Hence, the public safety exception to Miranda "rights." Miranda itself being a liberal distortion of the US Constitution.

Since when does the judiciary get to intrude itself into criminal/terrorist investigations?

See, this is just more pothead conservative phoniness. They scream about the Constitution, yet when something blatantly unconstitutional is done, but happens to favor criminals or terrorists, well, that can easily be rationalized away. In those cases, screw the Constitution.

[red states rule]

The US Supreme Court could and has taken issue with it. Hence, the public safety exception to Miranda "rights." Miranda itself being a liberal distortion of the US Constitution.

Since when does the judiciary get to intrude itself criminal/terrorist investigations?

See, this is just more pothead conservative phoniness. They scream about the Constitution, yet when something blatantly unconstitutional is done, but happens to favor criminals or terrorists, well, that can easily be rationalized away. In those cases, screw the Constitution.

Once again terrorists are laughing their asses off over the way some bend over backwards to protect their "rights"

[taft2012]

Once again terrorists are laughing their asses off over the way some bend over backwards to protect their "rights"

Not to mention the alleged "Constitutionalists" tossing out the Constitution to get their way.

This forum is very useful. Gabby aside, we don't really have any bona fide liberals to contend with.

They're all pothead conservatives (a.k.a. undercover liberals, a.k.a. pretend libertarians). This is a very useful platform on which to expose their fraudulence.

[Little-Acorn]

The Constitution doesn't require that a suspect be read his rights at all.

It requires that he HAVE those rights, of course - the right to remain silent, right to have an attorney, etc. etc. And that's the way it should be. Everyone must have those rights when accused of a crime.

But nowhere does it say that cops have to turn into schoolteachers and explain his rights to him.

That "requirement" for an explanation was invented out of thin air by an activist court, that didn't even try to pretend they were following the Constitution.

[Missileman]

The Constitution doesn't require that a suspect be read his rights at all.

It requires that he HAVE those rights, of course - the right to remain silent, right to have an attorney, etc. etc. And that's the way it should be. Everyone must have those rights when accused of a crime.

But nowhere does it say that cops have to turn into schoolteachers and explain his rights to him.

That "requirement" for an explanation was invented out of thin air by an activist court, that didn't even try to pretend they were following the Constitution.

And the Constitution sure as hell doesn't say that advising individuals of their rights is the sole function of the executive branch.

[taft2012]

And the Constitution sure as hell doesn't say that advising individuals of their rights is the sole function of the executive branch.

Miranda is not in the Constitution. However, when the liberals and pothead conservatives added it, it became the purview of the executive branch. Law enforcement falls under the executive branch in both federal and local governments.

This is another bizarre precedent from the Obama Administration. Theoretically, now any US Congressman, state senator, jurist, court clerk, or anyone presumably, can saunter up to a prisoner and administer Miranda and throw serious criminal investigations into complete turmoil.

We're owed an explanation on how this was allowed to happen. Unfortunately, it's just going to be tossed onto the heap of unexplained outrages of this Administration.