Constitutional Discussions
Well okay then. Can we just focus on Miranda and KSM for a moment? I cannot imagine any circumstance whatsoever that would have required, requested, or recommended KSM be read Miranda rights at Guantanamo. I do not know whether he's been Mirandized at this point in time (but I assume he was at some point, or else Eric Holder is more of a non-blithering but blathering idiot than he appears to be).
Therefore, if KSM was not Mirandized upon taken into custody, then.....all of his information/confessions/etc. will not be admissible as evidence? Not seeing a positive outcome here. Another reason why I think Holder/Obama are just plain old dumb if they think KSM will end up executed...-osufan
You are correct sir. Since it has been determined that KSM is to be tried in a civilian court in New York, everything he confessed to prior to being Marandized is inadmissable in court. Having said that however, I have no doubt that they have more than sufficient evidence to tie him to the '93 WTC attack, the Richard Reid attempted bombing episode, the murder of Daniel Pearl, as well as his own admission in an '02 interview with Al Jazeera (more than a year prior to his capture) that he was behind the 9-11 attacks, so for all intents and purposes nothing he has admitted while in US custody is germane to his prosecution and eventual conviction.
Simply put, he's going to fry unless somebody really whips it out and stomps on it with golf cleats.
OK, here's one for all of you to consider. Given that America isn't a Theocracy, so please leave all religious objections aside, what are your Constitutional opinions on homosexual marriage and why.
V, I think we've discussed this in the past, so no cheating!
Well okay then. Can we just focus on Miranda and KSM for a moment? I cannot imagine any circumstance whatsoever that would have required, requested, or recommended KSM be read Miranda rights at Guantanamo. I do not know whether he's been Mirandized at this point in time (but I assume he was at some point, or else Eric Holder is more of a non-blithering but blathering idiot than he appears to be).
Therefore, if KSM was not Mirandized upon taken into custody, then.....all of his information/confessions/etc. will not be admissible as evidence? Not seeing a positive outcome here. Another reason why I think Holder/Obama are just plain old dumb if they think KSM will end up executed...
-osufan
In as far as an execution, New Your does have the Death Penalty, however New York has not had an execution since 1976. There is currently a court ordered moratorium in effect.
Miranda rights should not be factor even if they try.
The Miranda rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of custodial police interrogation.
Evidence must have been gathered The evidence must be testimonial The evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody The evidence must have been the product of interrogation The interrogation must have been conducted by state-agents and The evidence must be offered by the state during a criminal prosecution. The evidence must have been the product of interrogation. A volunteered statement by a person in custody does not implicate Miranda. Miranda warnings do not need to be administered when there is an imminent threat to public safetyThough on the flip side of the coin, beginning in 2009, some detainees captured in Afghanistan have been read their Miranda rights by the FBI. Which makes one think the whole plan was to bring them back for trial here in the States.-bluemule
You are correct that Miranda does only apply to defendants who are being prosecuted, and their statements made while in Police custody, BUT as soon as anyone is placed under arrest, if the Police intend to question them, they must be Mirandized or anything they say prior to being apprised of their Rights is inadmissible in court.
The reason that the military has started Mirandizing "detainees" is because of the recent SCOTUS ruling that as soon as they are in our custody, regardless of where they are, if they are to be questioned by us, that would constitute a de facto custodial interrogation if they are ever to be brought to trial in a civilian court for crimes against the United States such as the '93 WTC bombing or 9-11.
Again, I want to be clear that I wholeheartedly disagree with the ruling of SCOTUS, as well as any civilian prosecution of any "terrorists". IMNSHO, they have declared War on the United States, and as such they are to be handled under the provisions of GCIII, and since they don't wear uniforms, they don't answer to a recognized 'chain of command', nor do they comport themselves under the recognized Rules of War, they are not eligible for ANY of the protections of GCIII, which means we can do anything we want to with them provided that we don't violate any of our Treaty obligations.
In as far as an execution, New Your does have the Death Penalty, however New York has not had an execution since 1976. There is currently a court ordered moratorium in effect.-veritas
Which in reality might be a smart move on Holders part. If we execute him, we make a Martyr of him. If we sentence him to a million years in prison with no possibility of parole, he'll be there until he dies, and if there's any justice in this world, he'll die incontinent and eaten up with AIDS after having been passed around to every homo in the entire prison....TWICE..A DAY!
OK, here's one for all of you to consider. Given that America isn't a Theocracy, so please leave all religious objections aside, what are your Constitutional opinions on homosexual marriage and why.
V, I think we've discussed this in the past, so no cheating!-03shooter
BUMP.
Nothing? Nobody?
Does that mean I can't answer, 03?
Does that mean I can't answer, 03?
-veritas
Well, since nobody else seems to be interested, by all means, go ahead!
The state should not be in the business of "marraige" - leave that to the churches.
The state should be in the business of "civil unions" for tax, legal purposes. From that viewpoint, what should the state care?
Well, since nobody else seems to be interested, by all means, go ahead!
-03shooter
If government was taken completely out of the equation, which of course at this point they are not, I would not care if people wanted to jump a broom to signify their marriage! But as it stands now, government is involved and until such involvement is ceased, I think it is incumbant upon us to take a stance that it should be between a man and a woman! I don't think the Fed should ever have a say in things of this nature, it is up to individual states to decide if they want to take up the question.
Constitutionally speaking, the government, whether it be state or federal cannot deny homosexuals the right to marry since marriage is a basic human right.
Firstly, when we consult Lord Blackstone (from whom the American legal system was originally derived, and who all of the FF's studied), marriage falls into two catagories, the cannonical (church) and civil. According to Blackstone, as far as the government is concerned, marriage is nothing but a civil contract, and as such, unless there is some issue which would nullify the contract on it's face such as an existing marriage contract (conflict of contract), being under the age of consent, mental impairment, or cosanguinity (being too closely related), there is no reason for the government to interfere with, or deny the marriage contract.
Then there is the issue of the 14th Amendment, under which the states (the original issueing agency of the marriage license) may not deny homosexuals their right to marry without being in violation of the Equal Protection clause, unless they deny EVERYONE the right to marry, so a States Rights argument doesn't work.
As far as the government not being involved at all, the only reason the government is involved in contracts at all, much less the marriage contract, is to resolve any issues of breech, and to ensure the property rights of those involved, and without the courts being available to the participants in the contract, their rights would not be protected should the contract be breeched or broken.
I hope this helps, and I look forward to reading your responses.
That doesn't track. The government certainly precludes many unions which could be called "Marriage."
By keeping the definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife, which is what it always has been, this confusion is easily avoided. Otherwise, it is unequal protection if "everyone" can't marry whomever and whatever they so decide. Isn't that right?
03, does that mean a man could marry many wives at one time as long as all parties agree to the contract?
That doesn't track. The government certainly precludes many unions which could be called "Marriage."
By keeping the definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife, which is what it always has been, this confusion is easily avoided. Otherwise, it is unequal protection if "everyone" can't marry whomever and whatever they so decide. Isn't that right?-hydrogia
Exactly which "unions" does the government preclude, and what "confusion" are you referring to? The last test to reach SCOTUS regarding marriage was Loving v Virginia (1967) in which the question of whether a white person could marry a black person, and the court ruled 9-0 that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...", therefore effectively ending the discussion.
03, does that mean a man could marry many wives at one time as long as all parties agree to the contract?
-veritas
No, that would constitute a "conflict of contract", and the only possible variance to that would be if polygamy was a basic tenet of the faith of the individuals in question (such as the FLDS), in which case their First Amendment rights would take precedence (in a purely Constitutional sense).
Not going to answer that, you can work something out. The confusion about the definition of marriage.
Not going to answer that, you can work something out. The confusion about the definition of marriage.
-hydrogia
OK, now I'm the one that's confused. Why would you not answer my question? Are you talking about people marrying animals? If so, when Dolly the sheep, or Bessy the cow learn to speak english well enough to say "I do", and learn to write well enough to sign their names to the marriage license (and I mean a real signature and not simply a hoof print), THEN they can get married too, but until then...
As to the definition of marriage, as I said, as far as the government is concerned (or rather is SUPPOSED to be concerned) it's simply a civil contract between two people and that's all. That in no way interferes with cannonical marriage (Holy Matrimony) as performed in and recognized by the Church.
As I've said before, to me this is strictly a Constitutional question, and in no way reflects my own personal beliefs, because frankly I've never been able to figure out how one man can look at another mans hairy backside and get excited about it.
Ok, I have a question. Does the SCOTUS not have a more required oversight of the Legislative and Administrative branches? Why are they allowed to propose and pass laws that if implemented are clearly unconstitutional without the SCOTUS reviewing them first hand? I hope that makes sense!
Well, husband and husband still isn't a marriage as understood forever, but I see what you are gettin at.
If you allow the oxymoronic "same-sex marriage" as a premise, the Constitution does not preclude it.
The problem is the marxist agitators know this is a vital wedge issue to pry our society apart, and they have worked wonders, so to speak. I think it is an effective subversive campaign.
