Now why would you think Miranda is or should be unconstitutional? It’s one of the few protections that citizens have against an aggressive police force and a trivially easy hurdle to overcome.
Because it being “one of the few protections that citizens have against an aggressive police force and a trivially easy hurdle to overcome” are what make it a great idea, but those factors have nothing to do with whether the Fifth Amendment requires it.
There are dozens of trivially easy protections we could offer to people that would be even more effective and less burdensome than Miranda warnings. For example, you could require that officers inform a person that they may choose not to consent to a search. But one of the foundations of our legal system is that people are presumed to know the law and their rights, even though we know that’s often false. Miranda is a weird exception from that, that I think is hard to justify from a legal perspective.
Three demerits for failure to carefully read the OP (unless you’re saying that you agree that it’s unconstitutional).
Do you think justification for hate crime laws is actually in the constitution, as you interpret it, or do you think it has been erroneously found to be there by the courts? I’m guessing the latter, but I could be wrong…
I read it carefully. I put that in parentheses in order to reserve my right to argue against its constitutionality if I see fit.
You think it’s constitutional, but you reserve the right to ague that it is not.
Hmm. I think that gets you five lawyers points. You should have been a litigator!
I am afraid to answer you for fear of losing points - after all, I’m winning! (So far).
All seriousness aside, it’s both, that is to say, neither. Hate crime legislation is (IMO) a violation of the equal protection clause, but has been upheld by the Supremes. The same could be said for Kelo v. City of New London mentioned above. These are examples of laws that violate current Constitutional provisions but have been upheld. Roe v. Wade violates only the 10th Amendment, and not a specific clause. If that makes any sense.
If the definition of “Constitutional” means “the Constitution as it should be interpreted”, in my case strictly/textually, then I will stick with Roe v. Wade as “Good but un-Constitutional” and pick marijuana illegality as “Bad but Constitutional”.
Regards,
Shodan
Just curious, do you oppose all immigration restrictions, or just ones based on country of origin? Do you think English proficiency and civics exams are good policies? Do you think our existing scheme of allowing quotas by country is acceptable, or would you also call that “bad”?
ETA: I hope this didn’t come across as argumentative. I’m really just trying to uncover your immigration position, not picking a fight.
My thoughts here (spoilered to try to avoid this conversation hijacking further contributions to the main challenge of the thread):
[spoiler]I think refugees from countries most impacted by terrorism are likely to be the people most deserving of refugee status. And I’m willing to do the right thing, even at some risk.
As for immigration more generally, some restrictions are desirable but I think we should approach every restriction carefully and with skepticism, erring on the side of not having it. Immigration is tremendously beneficial for the country to keep us from getting old and stagnant. On top of that, those of us born here are very lucky and we should share that privilege as much as possible. I don’t have any particular objection to English proficiency and civics exams as requirements for citizenship, but I’m not sure that they benefit us as bars to immigration more generally.
Our existing immigration system is thoroughly broken. Almost no one who understands the details of it defends it. It’s virtually impossible to get in the country unless you’re lucky or rich or related to someone here, while simultaneously we need many more skilled and unskilled immigrants. Instead of immigration by geographical happenstance and crapshoot, we should have rational immigration based on job availability and much broader and more lenient asylum rules.[/spoiler]
I’m not going to go with the OP’s definition of “constitutional”, because I’m not a legal expert and generally have no strong opinion on what should or shouldn’t be constitutional under the US Constitution. But going by what (I believe) is currently settled law, I would say “good but unconstitutional” would be corporal punishment (e.g. flogging) versus jail time for a lot of crimes.
“Bad but constitutional” is not clearly defined. Does that encompass any policy that I disagree with, e.g. high taxes? The list would be endless. Or is the idea something that we think should be unconstitutional? Only thing I can think of offhand in that category would be expansive judicial powers of interpretation.
Good and unconstitutional: Confiscation and destruction of every handgun and assault weapon in the US.
Bad and constitutional: Tax exemptions for religious organizations.
They’re not tax exempt because they’re religious, they’re tax exempt because they are charitable organizations. Did you want to get rid of tax exempt status for all charitable organizations? If not, you’d be hard pressed to not exempt churches, too.
I would eliminate tax exemptions for charitable organizations and eliminate the concept of a non-profit corporation all together - but I believe both of these are constitutional.
OK, just define charitable organizations in such a way that religious organizations are not charitable organizations.
Good but unconstitutional: If a 5-man majority of conservative Catholic judges claimed to have found some passage that can be interpreted as forbidding abortion, I would find that just as idiotic and dishonest as Harry Blackmun’s absurd Roe vs. Wade decision.
Bad but constitutional: too many things to list! Among them… I disagree with the Air Force forbidding Orthodox Jewish airmen to wear skullcaps, but I think they are within their rights to do so.