The Corner

Re: Miranda and Citizenship

Ramesh, I would think the only credible argument that the Constitution does not require Miranda — at least for any arrest inside the United States — would be made by people whose point is to state what the Constitution requires as an abstract proposition rather than as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Assuming that we accept the premise that the Constitution requires what the Supreme Court says it requires, I don’t see how, after the Dickerson case (which I wrote about here), anyone could contend with a straight face that Miranda is not required.

Don’t get me wrong. I think Dickerson is an awful decision — and, indeed, that Miranda is an awful decision. I’d also rather see a system where a super majority of Congress can overrule bad Supreme Court decisions. But what I think doesn’t matter. The Supreme Court says Miranda is required, period.

Most Popular


The Left, the Wall, the Truth

Democrats and others on the left offer three reasons for their opposition to building a wall on America's southern border. 1. A wall is ineffective. 2. A wall is too expensive. 3. A wall is immoral. Each one is false, so false as to constitute lies. So, the only question is: Do Democrats and others on ... Read More
White House

The FBI Tramples Our Political Order

The FBI took it upon itself to determine whether the president of the United States is a threat to national security. No one had ever before thought that this was an appropriate role for the FBI, a subordinate agency in the executive branch, but Donald Trump isn’t the only one in Washington trampling ... Read More