- Mar 7, 2016
- Reaction score
- Fencemans place...central Texas
TexasBred":61x8txah said:In that case Fence you could also oppose the entire bill of rights as they were added 3-4 years after the original constitution was signed and went into affect. Thus they are "amendments". Too many want to scream "I know my rights then disallow those same rights to those they disagree with or simply cherry pick the constitution and accept only those part that they accept. Can't have it both ways guys or the constitution is little more than a joke and do cherry pick it makes it an even bigger joke.callmefence":61x8txah said:greybeard":61x8txah said:You are asking me to do the research to support your assertions? You want fries and an apple pie with that as well?
No sir. I am working today and have packed a fine lunch. don't have the time to do the research. And your twisting my words I didn't ask you to do my research .I ask you if it was possible. Which you dodged.
I will say with the Miranda rights not being added until 1966. I can fully oppose the Miranda and still support the constitution as written by it's founders.( No hypocrisy)
And I could dispute the fact that these rights are guaranteed to all men. Simply because many of the founders owned slaves.
The topic is on the Miranda rights. I still consider this a prisoner of war.
But even in the instances of regular criminal cases I see no reason in evidence or statement s behind withheld because a person has not been informed of those rights by a arresting officer. That is the Miranda right.
It has nothing to do with taking his 5th amendment rights. It has to do with making sure he is aware of that right.
AS A US CITIZEN HE SHOULD BE AWARE.