?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Because I Am That Kind Of A Meme Geek

Saw this both at jelazakazone and satismagic, so credit goes to both these fine ladies.

The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic, to your lj. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.) For those who see this on your f-list, take the meme to your OWN lj to spread the fun.


You've heard this dialogue before, on any cop show. If it occurs twenty minutes in, they've got the wrong guy. If it happens at the forty-five minute mark, they have their dude: "[Suspect's name here], you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?"

If you are arrested in the United States, the cops must tell you this piece of information before they question you, and they must abide by the promises made therein. If they do not tell you and question you anyway, or if they do not keep the promises, your case can be thrown out of court. And they have to make sure you understand. There's an English verb specifically for making this speech: "to Mirandize."

The right to meaningful protection from self-incrimination in this kind of emergency situation was brought to you by a 1966 case called Miranda vs. Arizona.

Comments

( 29 comments — Leave a comment )
jelazakazone
Oct. 2nd, 2008 01:26 am (UTC)
I'm kind of thinking Katie Couric was a little unfair to Palin. I could only think of one Supreme Court case without nudging. DH came up with Scopes and of course you said Miranda. Once these things are said, I'm like, "duh, of course", but I didn't think of them initially.
frenchpony
Oct. 2nd, 2008 12:11 pm (UTC)
I suppose it would be even harder to think of the actual names of the cases when you're under hot lights and Katie Couric is smiling in your face. You could probably describe several, but you'd be referring to them as "the one where . . . " and that just doesn't look good on national television either.
jelazakazone
Oct. 2nd, 2008 12:49 pm (UTC)
By the way, I looked up the Scopes trial and it doesn't appear to have made it to the Supreme Court. Just fyi:)
karenator001
Oct. 2nd, 2008 03:15 am (UTC)
I'll just do it here since I'm too lazy to make my own post.

I'll take the Supreme Court decision of June 27, 2008 for the Lightning Round, Bob. That's when the Court upheld the 2nd Amendment: The Right to Bear Arms. Or as we know it in the Southern Realm: The Right to Bare Arms. And flipflops. But no white shoes after Labor Day.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080627.htm
frenchpony
Oct. 2nd, 2008 12:15 pm (UTC)
Every time we get into another Second Amendment mess, I keep thinking that that's one that we really ought to get around to modifying one of these days, like how you can use one Amendment to repeal another (Prohibition, for instance). Clearly, the circumstances envisioned by the original wording of the Second Amendment no longer exist, which is why we have so much trouble working our current gun culture around a law designed for the gun culture of 1787.

Then I remember that I'm just an effete liberal, and probably a Commie to boot. Alter the Second Amendment, and the GOP is likely to take aim at the First.
karenator001
Oct. 2nd, 2008 01:47 pm (UTC)
Clearly, the circumstances envisioned by the original wording of the Second Amendment no longer exist, which is why we have so much trouble working our current gun culture around a law designed for the gun culture of 1787.

I agree times have changed. However, I don't think we will ever disarm this country. The good folks who would trot down and turn in their firearms aren't a problem to start with. The ones who wouldn't are the ones who will continue to be a problem. We are as successful at stemming the flow of illegal weapons as we are stopping illegal drugs.

Alter the Second Amendment, and the GOP is likely to take aim at the First.

It wouldn't just be the GOP.

And as far as my personal opinion goes (and I'm not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat either) I am not in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment for the reasons I stated above and because I don't think we're done with terrorists on these shores. They've seen Wally Wingtip and Susie Slingback on TV and think that's America. They've not meet Ollie Ozark yet. At some point, we might need Ollie and his squirrel gun. I'm not talking about indiscriminately shooting anyone who looks different; yes, people who are idiots exist and will always be around to make everyone else feel like a friggin' genius. I'm talking about an event on a large enough scale that Ollie, who has good sense, will be necessary for the temporary protection of his home and this country. That's covered in the 2nd Amendment with the legal establishment of a militia. The framers of the Constitution may not have envisioned 9-11, but they made provisions for the reality, America would have enemies.

I also consulted my attorney, who once taught Constitutional Law, and he said as the Constitution is framed, the right to bear arms is a basic right, not contingent on the changing of society. The democratic form of government is always a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society. There will always be tension between the two. The Constitution ensures basic rights, and for the protection of society, the government ensures restrictions are imposed to regulate the degree of self-determination that Right grants.

In regards to the 2nd Amendment, it grants the individual the right to keep a weapon in his home for defense, and the government has the right to impose reasonable restrictions regarding carrying a weapon in public without a permit, as well as restricting the types of guns owned by individuals and who can obtain guns. For instance, an individual with a felony record cannot legally obtain or carry a gun. And in isolated instances, there are still people who hunt for food, not just for recreation, which is one of the issues addressed by the framers of the Constitution.

This tension exists in relation to all Constitutional Rights, such as freedom of speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater or slander someone. This tension is also found in relation to the right of privacy, which is attached to the abortion issue. Every single Constitutional Right is a balancing act of where the individual's rights meets the rights of society as a whole.
frenchpony
Oct. 2nd, 2008 03:16 pm (UTC)
I certainly don't think we should repeal the Second Amendment outright; I don't have a problem with the basic concept of a right to bear arms, and learning to shoot is on my list of things to do sometime in my life (just because I think it'd be kind of fun to at least know how). But I think that the current wording of the Second Amendment is vague: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It was designed for an era before automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and those are the ones that kids, gangs, drunks, and other urban idiots use to perpetrate a great deal of violence in the cities. It does not specify weapons kept for personal defense, it specifies a "well-regulated Militia." The closest thing we have to this is the National Guard. If there were some way to re-word this to make it clear that the right to bear arms is intended primarily for defense and hunting, and that it's not infringement to require registration, safety classes (for that "well-regulated" milita look), locks, and special consideration for automatic and semi-automatic weapons, we could make some sane gun laws in this country.

Ollie Ozark is a sensible guy when he's sober, but when he's drunk, not so much. And then there's Steven Schoolkid and Gregory Gangbanger to worry about as well. And, of course, Thaddeus Thug. Right now, they're more of a problem than Taslim Terrorist.

karenator001
Oct. 2nd, 2008 05:03 pm (UTC)
But I think that the current wording of the Second Amendment is vague: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That's where the balancing act between the individual and the government comes in. The federal government defines what a well regulated Militia is and it defines what types of guns are acceptable and who can own one. The definitions of what's legal can be tweaked on state and federal levels as society changes.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

That statement is the provision for the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. As I said previously, it's legal to own a weapon if you don't have a felony conviction, but it's illegal to carry it in public unless you have a concealed permit. Those are laws enacted after the Constitution was written because of society's needs. The part about personal defense is not implicitly stated, but within the spirit of the Amendment, it's understood that if someone owns a gun legally, it's reasonable to assume he would be within his Constitutional Rights to use it for self defense. And he is.

If there were some way to re-word this to make it clear that the right to bear arms is intended primarily for defense and hunting,...(snipped for space).

Many of those laws are already in place. If the 2nd Amendment was reworded to such specificity it would limit state and federal governments in enacting laws that would be relevant to a changing society.

Ollie Ozark is a sensible guy when he's sober, but when he's drunk, not so much. And then there's Steven Schoolkid and Gregory Gangbanger to worry about as well. And, of course, Thaddeus Thug. Right now, they're more of a problem than Taslim Terrorist.

Ollie might not ever drink. His cousin, Ozzie, might be a problem, and should be held responsible for being stupid. There are laws in place that provide for that.

Steven Schoolkid is a heartbreaker. There are kids falling through the cracks here and the problem is within each individual kid and also with the HEPA laws that prevent schools and medical institutions from alerting parents of problems. That law needs some serious revision. As it stands, the right to privacy supercedes the rights of others to reasonable safety.

I don't have a good solution for disturbed students except parents who own guns should be responsible owners. And even if they are, guns are easily obtained through the black market. Dealers aren't going to worry about the law.

Guns obtained legally, then used for illegal activities are already covered because a crime was committed and the penalty increases when firearms are involved.

Still, people are still going to do terrible things. That's not an excuse; it's just a fact of life. Society nails them when they can. Our only hope is to identify people at risk for violence beforehand and get them help, but then you get into privacy issues and people who simply won't cooperate but haven't committed a crime...yet. How do you police that? We can't arrest people for something they might do.

Right now, they're more of a problem than Taslim Terrorist.

As far as we know. I agree the everyday abuses are huge and serious, and should not be taken lightly. However, my point was the 2nd Amendment provides for a time when we, as citizens, may be called upon to do more than shoot skeet. Let's hope that never happens again. I'm not real optimistic.

The bad guys...well, I don't like them, but reality tells me that they've always been here and they'll be here long after I'm gone. We have well-defined laws already in place, but crimes happen anyway. We are not going to get guns out of the criminals' hands. Guns exist so they will have them.

frenchpony
Oct. 2nd, 2008 06:08 pm (UTC)
The problems with the gun laws are that they are not consistent from state to state, that they are not consistently enforced, and that the NRA chews up lots of time fighting against and watering down safety regulations every goddamn time. We regulate automobiles, and I don't see why we couldn't regulate firearm ownership as well. In order to possess a valid driver's license, you have to learn how to operate the vehicle and follow the traffic laws, and the DMV has to sign off on that. Why not institute a gun license, where you must take a firearms safety course and be certified by some government bureaucracy that will make you stand in long lines while they play inane safety videos at you and then slam the windows shut and go to lunch just as you reach the head of the line?

That's not infringing on anyone's basic right to own and carry a gun. It's just regulating how that right is exercised. Then you require gun shops to check the customer's gun license before selling. This would probably cut down on the number of Saturday night specials that make the South Side such a dangerous place to be.
karenator001
Oct. 3rd, 2008 12:35 am (UTC)
The problems with the gun laws are that they are not consistent from state to state, that they are not consistently enforced

That's because each state has its own Constitution and each state enacts its own laws relevant to their population. The Constitution provides for that. What's good for New York might not be good for Iowa. As long as state laws or city ordinances do not conflict with federal laws or Constitutional Rights, states have the right to govern as they see fit. Washington, DC passing an ordinance prohibiting anyone from owning a gun is what brought about the June, 2008 Supreme Court decision. They violated the Constitution.

We regulate automobiles, and I don't see why we couldn't regulate firearm ownership as well. In order to possess a valid driver's license, you have to learn how to operate the vehicle and follow the traffic laws, and the DMV has to sign off on that.

Driver's license are state regulated, not federal. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants anyone the right to drive a car. It's a privilege, not a right. At one time, there were no laws governing who could drive. States enacted them for the good of society. States could pass laws requiring people applying for the purchase of guns to attend a safety seminar, but it's not a federal or Constitutional issue. Local municipalities also have ordinances, but what is a city ordinance in my town, might not be one in yours. That's democracy. If a group of people in a state feel the state needs to enact laws like the ones you mentioned, then they can lobby their state representatives to do so. It's their right. If the group feels the federal government needs to enact such a law, then they can lobby their federal Senate representatives. And yes, you'll have to compete with the NRA and any other person and state that does not want the federal government making that decision made for them. States are pretty independent and frown on federal mandates in most instances. It'd be a hard sell. You'd probably have a better chance on the state level.

Then you require gun shops to check the customer's gun license before selling.

There's already a law in place that serves a similar purpose. When anyone purchases a gun, their name is run through a database to look for felony convictions that would prohibit the sell of the weapon.
meggins
Oct. 3rd, 2008 02:28 am (UTC)
There is nothing in the Constitution that grants anyone the right to drive a car.

It would be pretty durned amazing if there were.

karenator001
Oct. 3rd, 2008 03:48 am (UTC)
It would be pretty durned amazing if there were.

Yup. :>)
frenchpony
Oct. 3rd, 2008 03:18 am (UTC)
Local municipalities also have ordinances, but what is a city ordinance in my town, might not be one in yours. That's democracy.

And democracy gets a lot of things wrong.
karenator001
Oct. 3rd, 2008 03:47 am (UTC)
And democracy gets a lot of things wrong.

Yes. People are flawed and people make the laws, but it's what we've got and fortunately because of the Constitution, we have the right to lobby for changes in laws we feel aren't working or to enact laws we feel are needed.

I don't disagree with you that safeguards are necessary and the ones we have don't always work, but from a Constitutional view, amending the 2nd Amendment won't solve the problems. In fact, such changes may, in the end, create more problems.

But the good news is that you can always start your own organization to bring about firearm reform: Gamelan Players for Gun Safety. Or Ethnomusicologist for Ethical Gun Ownership. :>)
frenchpony
Oct. 3rd, 2008 09:02 pm (UTC)
Gamelan Players for Gun Safety reminds everyone that peking tabuh are made out of water buffalo horns, and therefore have nice stabbity pointy ends. Much better for conflict resolution than guns.

Ethnomusicologists for Ethical Gun Ownership cannot be reached right now because all of its members are doing fieldwork on silencers and earmuffs.
arwensommer
Oct. 2nd, 2008 05:06 am (UTC)
1. L'shanah tova :)

2. Miranda was actually partially modified at a later date (though largely upheld). I'll be *beeped* if I can remember what case that was at this hour, though! ;)
frenchpony
Oct. 2nd, 2008 12:18 pm (UTC)
1. Thank you!

2. That would be Hiibel vs. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 2004 -- the police are allowed to pick you up while you are in the process of committing a crime and you have to tell them who you are if they ask.
rhobike
Oct. 2nd, 2008 03:38 pm (UTC)
I don't feel like posting to my own LJ, but off the top of my head I'll say a decision worth commemorating that hasn't been mentioned here yet is Brown vs. Board of Education, when the court ruled against segregated schools.
frenchpony
Oct. 2nd, 2008 05:58 pm (UTC)
Definitely one of the all-time great decisions, that.
meggins
Oct. 3rd, 2008 02:33 am (UTC)
Also not posting in my journal, but here's an oldie: Marbury v. Madison. If I understand aright, it seems to have solidified the concept of judicial review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v_Madison
frenchpony
Oct. 3rd, 2008 03:16 am (UTC)
Mmm, yes, I like judicial review. That one's definitely a keeper.
karenator001
Oct. 3rd, 2008 01:35 pm (UTC)
That one's definitely a keeper.

Yes. In fact, the article states: This conflict raised the important question of what happens when an Act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution. Marshall answered that Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not law and the Courts are bound instead to follow the Constitution, affirming the principle of judicial review. In support of this position Marshall looked to the nature of the written Constitution—there would be no point of having a written Constitution if the courts could just ignore it. ...Finally, Marshall pointed to the judge's oath requiring them to uphold the Constitution, and to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which lists the "Constitution" before the "laws of the United States."

Alexander Hamilton said of the issue: "If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. ...A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

What I think this says, even though this case more specifically addresses court jurisdiction, is that the Constitution is going to be upheld, because if we don't, we descend upon a slippery slope that won't stop with circumventing it one time, but will result in the eventual erosion of all rights protected by the Constitution. However, as long as a lower court decision does not conflict with the Constitution and legal remedy is provided, it can go forward.

As is the case with all Amendments, laws for the governance of how the amendment is regulated is in the hands of legislators. Stricter guns are well within the scope of state and federal law makers' power as long as the 2nd Amendment is upheld.

And really, I kind of like the idea of licensure and mandatory classes. I'm not sure how practical it would be in the long run for fixing what ails us with firearm abuse. I doubt it would decrease crime since people who are going to commit felonies aren't likely to follow that law any better than they would the one that says you can't rob a bank, but I'd like to take the course and it would establish a standard for legal gun owners. For what that'd be worth. Dunno.

This has been an interesting discussion. In reading up on the issue and discussing it with my legal counsel, I've learned a lot and taken pause to think about where I stand, which I'm still not sure I can say where that is other than I support leaving the Constitution intact. I think your heart is in the right place. You see a problem and you want to fix it. I don't know what the answer is, but no problems are ever solved, I don't think, unless someone, like you and many others, care enough to question. You're a good egg.

frenchpony
Oct. 3rd, 2008 09:12 pm (UTC)
Licensure and mandatory classes would do a couple of things, I think. First of all, they'd ensure that gun owners get some basic training in how to use the weapon that doesn't come from Poppa or the guy down at the pawnshop. Second, licenses have to be renewed. Make people have to demonstrate continuing familiarity with gun safety in order to renew the license, and you'll have people who won't forget as easily. Third, licensing would emphasize that, although gun ownership is a right, it's a right that you have to grow into exercising. Voting is a right, but we don't extend it to people under 18. Putting a minimum age on gun ownership sends a signal that people need to be mature about this right. Of course, there are still people who vote for Dubya Mickey Mouse, and there will still be people who are too dumb to be trusted with guns even after they're old enough, but maybe some of the idiots will be weeded out.

I think your heart is in the right place.

Between my lungs, underneath my sternum.

You're a good egg.

Though perhaps a bit scrambled? But thanks for the sentiment!
karenator001
Oct. 4th, 2008 03:59 pm (UTC)
Licensure and mandatory classes would do a couple of things, I think.

So yesterday, while re-grouting my shower, it suddenly occurred to me, that mandatory classes could not be required in order to secure a 'right'. It would be a Constitutional violation since rights are free and inherit to all Americans. Well, crap.

Then I thought it was possible for the classes and licensure to be offered on a voluntary basis. Gun owners could receive the training, register their weapons in case they're stolen, and give the owner a license, which would not be the same as a concealed weapon permit, but the owner would be able to say he was licensed, meaning he was a responsible gun owner.

There's the cost problem. If states or the feds have to cough up the money to run the program, they're going to be hesitant. If the owner has to pay for something he doesn't really need legally, few would do it.

Also, most states, if not all, already have in place a minimum age requirement for purchasing a weapon...and the law may even limit what kind of weapon according to age...but that's left up to individual states to determine.

When I read your note about limitations on voting rights, I wondered if that could crossover. I asked legal counsel who was half asleep in his recliner. His answer, without opening his eyes, was: "Dunno." Well, that was worth what I paid for it.

So, I searched online to determine if voting was a Constitutional right or a privilege. Here's what I found: The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.


http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

Dang. A good Constitutional lawyer might argue before the Supreme Court that voting is as much a right as any other under 'the spirit of the Constitution', and as such, limitations placed on voting set a precedent for enacting more uniform laws regarding weapon ownership and since some states legally require literacy (competency) tests in order to vote, such can also be required for weapon ownership.

My head hurts. :>/

Edited at 2008-10-04 04:02 pm (UTC)
frenchpony
Oct. 4th, 2008 04:04 pm (UTC)
My head hurts. :>/

Inhaling grout fumes all day will do that to you . . .

A good Constitutional lawyer might argue before the Supreme Court that voting is as much a right as any other under 'the spirit of the Constitution', and as such, limitations placed on voting set a precedent for enacting more uniform laws regarding weapon ownership and since some states legally require literacy (competency) tests in order to vote, such can also be required for weapon ownership.

Particularly since people with guns kill so many more people than people with butterfly ballots do. Maybe because it's easier to figure out how to work a gun than a butterfly ballot? (rim shot)
karenator001
Oct. 4th, 2008 04:20 pm (UTC)
Maybe because it's easier to figure out how to work a gun than a butterfly ballot? (rim shot)

It would be for me. I don't know what a butterfly ballot is. We have touch screens down here in the Southern Realm.
frenchpony
Oct. 4th, 2008 05:08 pm (UTC)
This is a butterfly ballot. In fact, it's the one that caused so many problems in Florida in 2000. As I recall, Illinois had a butterfly ballot that year, too, but we didn't have as many problems. Perhaps we are just smarter here in the benevolent dictatorship of King Richard II?

I do not trust touch screen voting at all. Vote fraud is just too easy to do with a touch screen ballot.

Illinois has recently switched to a "connect the two halves of the arrow" ballot. It's easy enough, and it's also what they used in old Grad School State.
karenator001
Oct. 5th, 2008 01:11 pm (UTC)
Perhaps we are just smarter here in the benevolent dictatorship of King Richard II?

LOL! Could be.

I've seen, maybe even used, butterfly ballots, but didn't know that's what they're called. In my time, I've voted on several different kinds, including the lever-thingies, the push button ones and the connect the arrow-thing sounds familiar too. Looks like we can't make up our minds about what to use down here if I've used so many different ones...or I've been voting for a very long time. For the last election, I voted at Senior Citizens because I took my dad there. They allowed me to vote as well since I'm his personal driver. Boy, that was great. Two seconds...in and out. I hope we can do that again in November.

I like the touch screen because they're simple and direct. Vote fraud? When there's a will, there's a way. Someone will figure out how to screw with all of the equipment if given a chance, I'm sure. I don't worry about it since I can't control it and I don't know if it's going on. Since we've never, as far as I know, had fraud issues in this state, I just do my duty as a citizen and wear my little 'I Voted' sticker.

Now, I've got to look up whether we've had voter fraud in this state. There are some counties I wouldn't be surprised to find out there has been, but I don't recall it.
frenchpony
Oct. 5th, 2008 04:10 pm (UTC)
Vote fraud? When there's a will, there's a way.

Yes, but the touch screen practically invites it. Really, a thirteen-year-old could commit vote fraud with those setups. If the parties are going to defraud voters, at least they ought to have to make some effort to do it.

(Says she who lives in the city that has become almost synonymous with open-secret vote fraud.)
( 29 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

by Illsaysheis
frenchpony
frenchpony

Latest Month

July 2015
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow