A few years back, during the Trump Administration, the Washington Post adopted the front page banner, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” I was never entirely clear on what that was supposed to mean, although I’m pretty sure it was a dig at Trump, who, according the the Post, kept the country in the dark by constant lying and exaggerating. (Indeed, the Post kept a running tally on what it regarded as Trump’s lies. When the administration ended,
I agree with most everything here, except I think the constitutional right against self-incrimination is procedural, not substantive, due process, since it regulates testimonial evidence. I agree that the Miranda Warning is hard to defend, since the straight-jacket requirements it imposes are legislative, not judicial, requirements.
1. "Democracy Dies in Darkness" was nothing but a dig at Trump. It turned out to be a pledge, as the Post, along with the Times, kept the country in the dark about the covert attempt by Obama et al. to subvert Trump's presidency. 2. I'd improve on Scalia: The Constitution says what it wants to say and doesn't say what it doesn't want to say. 3. Miranda treats suspects and defendants as children, requiring their acknowledgment that they received (and hence understood) the warnings. Contrast the US with Canada (and probably the UK): It has cautions, which the police are required to administer, but there's no requirement that the defendant acknowledge in writing.
And what we know about "Trump's lies" is that they are really just opinions that the Wa Post disagrees with. Regarding Miranda rights, I grew up with a guy that got busted selling weed. He got the charges dropped because the police forgot to read the Miranda rights to him. Its probably a good idea for police to read these rights to people when they are arrested, however, whether they read them should not be determinative of the outcome when a crime was committed. The lack of reading the rights does not negate the guilt of the crime.
I agree with most everything here, except I think the constitutional right against self-incrimination is procedural, not substantive, due process, since it regulates testimonial evidence. I agree that the Miranda Warning is hard to defend, since the straight-jacket requirements it imposes are legislative, not judicial, requirements.
1. "Democracy Dies in Darkness" was nothing but a dig at Trump. It turned out to be a pledge, as the Post, along with the Times, kept the country in the dark about the covert attempt by Obama et al. to subvert Trump's presidency. 2. I'd improve on Scalia: The Constitution says what it wants to say and doesn't say what it doesn't want to say. 3. Miranda treats suspects and defendants as children, requiring their acknowledgment that they received (and hence understood) the warnings. Contrast the US with Canada (and probably the UK): It has cautions, which the police are required to administer, but there's no requirement that the defendant acknowledge in writing.
And what we know about "Trump's lies" is that they are really just opinions that the Wa Post disagrees with. Regarding Miranda rights, I grew up with a guy that got busted selling weed. He got the charges dropped because the police forgot to read the Miranda rights to him. Its probably a good idea for police to read these rights to people when they are arrested, however, whether they read them should not be determinative of the outcome when a crime was committed. The lack of reading the rights does not negate the guilt of the crime.