4 ms·

You're confusing explicit rights with implicit rights built on precedence. Much of what's considered Constitutional rights is not definite and explicit. Likewis

by aric 12y ago

You're confusing explicit rights with implicit rights built on precedence. Much of what's considered Constitutional rights is not definite and explicit. Likewise, the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that you have a right to your physical senses as a sentient being beyond ambiguous terms pertaining to welfare. This reminds me of a leading worry during the writing of the Bill of Rights: a worry that the affirmation of some specific humanitarian rights might regrettably lead society into believing that mere omission becomes the grounds for abusing freedoms unstated. > It is only in the past 50 years that any court has ever held the fifth amendment gave you the right to remain silent, and in fact, precedent was the exact opposite for centuries. Yes. It became a right. Go ahead and argue all day about what you perceive as fulfilling the qualification of a "right." I'll argue in direct contrast if your interpretation of rights remains narrow and dictated by the past. It won't help the situation at hand. Miranda warnings wouldn't have resulted if it weren't for precedence and perceived rights upholding it. Now the tides shift again. You're free to call this a "return to the past" or a "return to previous rights I think you never had" or whatever you wish. I call it the erosion of rights. -------------------- Edit: > But the solution to that is not to pretend they are written into the constitution and then lament a changing ideology of the supreme court, but instead actually put them there. That would be ideal. That would be a colossal task, indeed, in lieu of a great number of other rights continuing to erode through an oligarchy's surveillance institutions and corporate decree.

tptacek 12y ago
You're caught in a semantic rut. Your peer in this conversation isn't suggesting that there is no "right to silence". Re-read his comment. He's acknowledging that there is an implied right, but pointing out that it is not in the Constitution. He agrees with you that the right is eroding. His disagreement regards the solution that erosion. Your solution seems to be to shore up the implied right to silence that comes from Miranda. His is to add an amendment to the Constitution to formalize a right to silence.
- aric 12y ago
  It's a semantic rut, perhaps. It's not necessarily my semantic rut. Off the bat he was arguing down this road as if to suggest that I was implying that "remaining silent" was explicitly spelled out in the Constitution -- something I never implied. I'm not stating solutions. I'm commenting on results. Ideas for solutions are numerous and probably least served for attention in this thread. A full constitutional amendment would be great. Agreed. Unfortunately, that's a daunting likelihood given the prevailing winds. This matter would benefit from re-reading my comments equally, as well, but I digress. No worries. Thank you for your added thoughts.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    You wrote: " [basically it's sad that one must] verbally invoke a primary Constitutional right before one 'obtains' that right" Note: you argue it is a primary constitutional right. Primary constitutional rights are those actually found in the constitution. Yours is not. So when you say this is "something I never implied", i strongly disagree. If you didn't mean to imply it, fine. But I guarantee that anyone with any legal background read your comment and came away with the same impression. Your argument seemed to me to be "because it's a primary constitutional right, I should not have to invoke it explicitly". My argument is: You have to invoke it precisely because it is not a primary constitutional right.
    - aric 12y ago
      The term "Constitutional right" refers to legal rights derived from and related to the Constitution. Hence, they're termed Constitutional. If you disagree with this term, you disagree with thousands upon thousands of other rights that are equally considered Constitutional and part of Constitutional law. Most Constitutional rights are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Instead they're derived from interpretation of the succinct language used in the Constitution. This topic is rooted in Constitutional rights. I respect that the word 'primary' could be misinterpreted. And it's subjective. Personally, I don't know where I'd place this issue on a list of humanitarian rights if I had to rank. Most issues related to speech and freedom from tyranny, and its numerous forms of persecution, are issues that I usually deem 'primary.'

by aric 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago

You're caught in a semantic rut. Your peer in this conversation isn't suggesting that there is no "right to silence". Re-read his comment. He's acknowledging that there is an implied right, but pointing out that it is not in the Constitution. He agrees with you that the right is eroding. His disagreement regards the solution that erosion. Your solution seems to be to shore up the implied right to silence that comes from Miranda. His is to add an amendment to the Constitution to formalize a right to silence.

aric 12y ago
It's a semantic rut, perhaps. It's not necessarily my semantic rut. Off the bat he was arguing down this road as if to suggest that I was implying that "remaining silent" was explicitly spelled out in the Constitution -- something I never implied. I'm not stating solutions. I'm commenting on results. Ideas for solutions are numerous and probably least served for attention in this thread. A full constitutional amendment would be great. Agreed. Unfortunately, that's a daunting likelihood given the prevailing winds. This matter would benefit from re-reading my comments equally, as well, but I digress. No worries. Thank you for your added thoughts.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  You wrote: " [basically it's sad that one must] verbally invoke a primary Constitutional right before one 'obtains' that right" Note: you argue it is a primary constitutional right. Primary constitutional rights are those actually found in the constitution. Yours is not. So when you say this is "something I never implied", i strongly disagree. If you didn't mean to imply it, fine. But I guarantee that anyone with any legal background read your comment and came away with the same impression. Your argument seemed to me to be "because it's a primary constitutional right, I should not have to invoke it explicitly". My argument is: You have to invoke it precisely because it is not a primary constitutional right.
  - aric 12y ago
    The term "Constitutional right" refers to legal rights derived from and related to the Constitution. Hence, they're termed Constitutional. If you disagree with this term, you disagree with thousands upon thousands of other rights that are equally considered Constitutional and part of Constitutional law. Most Constitutional rights are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Instead they're derived from interpretation of the succinct language used in the Constitution. This topic is rooted in Constitutional rights. I respect that the word 'primary' could be misinterpreted. And it's subjective. Personally, I don't know where I'd place this issue on a list of humanitarian rights if I had to rank. Most issues related to speech and freedom from tyranny, and its numerous forms of persecution, are issues that I usually deem 'primary.'