From the article: Another terrifying twist to the Salinas decision is that it imposes on a suspect the necessity of invoking specific language before law enforcement will honor the basic civil liberties of a person who is (or historically, was) innocent until proven guilty. Justice Breyer recognized how this novel necessity places a nearly insuperable barrier to invoking one’s right to remain silent. Writing for the dissent, Justice Breyer asked, “How can an individual who is not a lawyer know that these particular words [“I expressly invoke the privilege against self incrimination”] are legally magic?” ... Finally, read the warning issued by Abraham Holmes during the Massachusetts ratifying convention in January 1788: There is nothing to prevent Congress from passing laws which shall compel a man, who is accused or suspected of a crime, to furnish evidence against himself, and even from establishing laws which shall order the court to take the charge exhibited against a man for truth, unless he can furnish evidence of his innocence. I do not pretend to say Congress will do this; but, sir, I undertake to say that Congress (according to the powers proposed to be given them by the Constitution) may do it; and if they do not, it will be owing entirely — I repeat it, it will be owing entirely — to the goodness of the men, and not in the least degree owing to the goodness of the Constitution. ... My take: illegal laws are illegal and do not apply. Laws that violate basic human rights are not valid and are criminal if enforced. Even people just doing their jobs in the enforcement of criminal laws -- are criminals to be prosecuted as such (or, are required to simply conform with, and honor, the most basic human rights).
Posted on: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:07:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015