6 ms·

For reference, here's a handy flowchart on Fifth Amendment law by lawyer Nathan Burney: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897

elastic_church 10y ago
so long... thats not handy at all, on the go at least but I wish that lawyers could produce these flow charts when they say "it depends"
- Dru89 10y ago
  Sorry, is it not handy because it's inaccurate? Or simply because it's so lengthy?
- srtjstjsj 10y ago
  That's the gag (as you can see in the punchline at the bottom): the specifics of the law is absurd and deeply hostile to the intent of the Constitution.
  - tyre 10y ago
    > the specifics of the law is absurd and deeply hostile to the intent of the Constitution. All of these scenarios exist because courts have interpreted the constitution. I'm not sure SCOTUS is "deeply hostile to the intent of the Constitution." Yes, it's complicated, but that is because real life is complicated. Tangentially, this is why something like Ethereum or other "Smart Contracts" are so hard and why lawyers exist. The real world gets complicated quickly.
    - int_19h 10y ago
      > I'm not sure SCOTUS is "deeply hostile to the intent of the Constitution." Wickard v. Filburn was a mockery of the intent of the Constitution in all but name. And it's not the only case like that. The problem with SCOTUS is that it can really do whatever the hell it wants. It's <em>supposed</em> to do the right thing, but because it is the final arbiter, they get to decide what the right thing is. Sometimes they do it in ways that are wrong in any other meaningful sense.
      - elastic_church 10y ago
        You see Venezuala's Supreme Court reinterpreted the validity of their democratically elected representatives today? lol!
        dang 10y ago
        Would you please not post unsubstantive comments to HN?
      - avar 10y ago
        They're not the final arbiter, if the SCOTUS does something wrong the constitution can be amended to clarify or change the intent of the law. Then the SCOTUS will be beholden to that constitutional amendment. That there isn't political will to routinely do this in response to bad SCOTUS rulings is not an inherent problem with the system itself.
        pc86 10y ago
        Some would say it's a feature, not a bug.
        int_19h 10y ago
        The barrier to amend the constitution is so high, that it's virtually insurmountable in a highly partisan environment, if the ruling is itself partisan.
    - maehwasu 10y ago
      let gets_complicated = "FDR is going to pack the court if I don't start finding ways to go along with him"
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 10y ago
    If anything, the Fifth Amendment has been interpreted more broadly than intended! The Constitution just says that the government can't compel someone "to be a witness" against himself "in any criminal case." Just reading the text, the only questions are (1) is this a criminal case, and (2) is the government forcing you to be a witness in the case? If yes, the Fifth Amendment applies. If not, then it doesn't. Easy peasy. But as interpreted, the Fifth Amendment covers much more than "be[ing] a witness," and doesn't only apply "in a criminal case." And the whole Miranda thing is pulled totally out of thin air. If you look at the chart, most of the exceptions and edge cases in the are there to cabin and delineate all the extra protections the Supreme Court has layered on top of the Fifth Amendment.
ckirksey 10y ago
Nice! That was super helpful. I wish the author would put arrows on his flow chart though. Clearly not an engineer :)
- hyperbovine 10y ago
  Proceeding from the bottom up makes for interesting reading.
efuquen 10y ago
It's crazy how the section about dealing with the police is nearly double the size of the rest of the chart.
jakebasile 10y ago
This comic/guide is wonderful. I particularly like the summary on trials by jury[1]. It's not great, but it's much better than the other legal systems we've had. edit: I also like this sequence explaining why thoughts are not crimes. [2] [1]: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=337 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=337 [2]: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=380 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=380
- sleepychu 10y ago
  [1] links to the last page, you want: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
How are Levandowski or Uber invoking the Fifth Amendment, then? Levandowski is not being asked by the government since this is a civl suit (unless the court counts as the government, per the flowchart?). And Uber is a corporation.
- bb611 10y ago
  He's said he won't provide documents for the trial, at which point Google's lawyers would ask for a judge's order compelling him to do so. His lawyer says he won't provide them in that case either. They skipped the step of waiting for the actual order.

elastic_church 10y ago

so long... thats not handy at all, on the go at least but I wish that lawyers could produce these flow charts when they say "it depends"

Dru89 10y ago
Sorry, is it not handy because it's inaccurate? Or simply because it's so lengthy?
srtjstjsj 10y ago
That's the gag (as you can see in the punchline at the bottom): the specifics of the law is absurd and deeply hostile to the intent of the Constitution.
- tyre 10y ago
  > the specifics of the law is absurd and deeply hostile to the intent of the Constitution. All of these scenarios exist because courts have interpreted the constitution. I'm not sure SCOTUS is "deeply hostile to the intent of the Constitution." Yes, it's complicated, but that is because real life is complicated. Tangentially, this is why something like Ethereum or other "Smart Contracts" are so hard and why lawyers exist. The real world gets complicated quickly.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    > I'm not sure SCOTUS is "deeply hostile to the intent of the Constitution." Wickard v. Filburn was a mockery of the intent of the Constitution in all but name. And it's not the only case like that. The problem with SCOTUS is that it can really do whatever the hell it wants. It's <em>supposed</em> to do the right thing, but because it is the final arbiter, they get to decide what the right thing is. Sometimes they do it in ways that are wrong in any other meaningful sense.
    - elastic_church 10y ago
      You see Venezuala's Supreme Court reinterpreted the validity of their democratically elected representatives today? lol!
      - dang 10y ago
        Would you please not post unsubstantive comments to HN?
    - avar 10y ago
      They're not the final arbiter, if the SCOTUS does something wrong the constitution can be amended to clarify or change the intent of the law. Then the SCOTUS will be beholden to that constitutional amendment. That there isn't political will to routinely do this in response to bad SCOTUS rulings is not an inherent problem with the system itself.
      - pc86 10y ago
        Some would say it's a feature, not a bug.
      - int_19h 10y ago
        The barrier to amend the constitution is so high, that it's virtually insurmountable in a highly partisan environment, if the ruling is itself partisan.
  - maehwasu 10y ago
    let gets_complicated = "FDR is going to pack the court if I don't start finding ways to go along with him"
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 10y ago
  If anything, the Fifth Amendment has been interpreted more broadly than intended! The Constitution just says that the government can't compel someone "to be a witness" against himself "in any criminal case." Just reading the text, the only questions are (1) is this a criminal case, and (2) is the government forcing you to be a witness in the case? If yes, the Fifth Amendment applies. If not, then it doesn't. Easy peasy. But as interpreted, the Fifth Amendment covers much more than "be[ing] a witness," and doesn't only apply "in a criminal case." And the whole Miranda thing is pulled totally out of thin air. If you look at the chart, most of the exceptions and edge cases in the are there to cabin and delineate all the extra protections the Supreme Court has layered on top of the Fifth Amendment.

ckirksey 10y ago

Nice! That was super helpful. I wish the author would put arrows on his flow chart though. Clearly not an engineer :)

hyperbovine 10y ago
Proceeding from the bottom up makes for interesting reading.

efuquen 10y ago

It's crazy how the section about dealing with the police is nearly double the size of the rest of the chart.

jakebasile 10y ago

This comic/guide is wonderful. I particularly like the summary on trials by jury[1]. It's not great, but it's much better than the other legal systems we've had. edit: I also like this sequence explaining why thoughts are not crimes. [2] [1]: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=337 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=337 [2]: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=380 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=380

sleepychu 10y ago
[1] links to the last page, you want: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

How are Levandowski or Uber invoking the Fifth Amendment, then? Levandowski is not being asked by the government since this is a civl suit (unless the court counts as the government, per the flowchart?). And Uber is a corporation.

bb611 10y ago
He's said he won't provide documents for the trial, at which point Google's lawyers would ask for a judge's order compelling him to do so. His lawyer says he won't provide them in that case either. They skipped the step of waiting for the actual order.