"Charlie S." w5cds (at) arrl (dot) net wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
9/13/08

snip

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words
"under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough
for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be
immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the
pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't
added until the 1950s--while if you're black and believe in reading
accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the
Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school,
requires it), you are a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to
safeguard American institutions.


You know, last time I looked, it was NOT the Constitution that
required the reading of rights to the suspect(s), but the result of
the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda
v. Arizona.

It's true that Miranda isn't a verbatim recapitulation of anything
specifically and explicitly stated in the constitution, but then, anything
that is would be superfluous, right? Meanwhile, it is generally accepted
that the busines of the Supreme Court is, to a large extent, the analysis,
interpretation, extension, amplification and exposition not only of the
literal content of the constitution (which, after all, is right out there
where any educated and thoughtful person can read it for him or her self,
and which couldn't possibly have anticipated any and all future needs,
anyway), but also of the philosophy and doctrine of law espoused therein.
Unfortunately, not everyone in this country is well educated and thoughtful.
Many are not intimately familiar with the provisions of the fifth Amendment
to the Constitution and all of its implications, legal, philosophical, or
practical. Moreover, even among those who ARE intimately familiar with its
provisions, there will be those whose capacity doesn't necessarily extend to
a realization that self-incrimination can be inadvertent and that simple
silence may be their best course.

In simplest terms, Miranda is nothing more than a gloss on the phrase
"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself..." and a prohibition against law enforcement agents working on the
erroneous assumption that accused suspects may be treated as if they don't
have certain rights just because they aren't aware of them.

In short, there is a widespread (if not quite universal or expressly stated)
consensus in this country to the effect that Miranda rights ARE included in
the fifth Amendment which, the last time I looked, is still a part of the
United States Constitution.

Although I agree with some of your statements, if you expect to be
seen as literate and even knowledgeable, you might want to keep your
rantings factually correct.

Ainna?

Wolfgang