[jhendon5]

The online magazine “The New American” ran an article recently with the headline “Supreme Court Bombshell: No Right to Remain Silent” which alleges that on June 17, 2013 the Supreme Court ruled in Salinas v. Texas that criminal suspects no longer have the right to remain silent unless they have already been read their Miranda rights and only then if they speak the legally magic words “I expressly invoke the privilege against self incrimination”.

In other words simply remaining silent does not invoke one’s right to remain silent.

This appears to be a momentous breach of the 5th amendment right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself and yet because I had not previously seen or heard anything about this decision I’m wondering if the author exaggerates.

The author of the article is Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D.; the article can be found at

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15787-supreme-court-bombshell-no-right-to-remain-silent

[gutzmank]

That’s essentially what Salinas says.

Since the Incorporation Doctrine is bogus, any loosening of requirements imposed upon the states by federal courts under its cover is a victory for constitutionalism. Besides that, it seems to me difficult to argue that anyone is being forced to do what he does voluntarily — in this case, speak.

[john.j.baeza]

Isn’t Miranda just a prophylactic to the Constitution and therefore not Constitutional? I in no way support coercive interrogations by police-I feel the rightful remedy is to prosecute those who abuse and coerce alleged suspects.

[gutzmank]

John, the Miranda warning certainly is entirely the invention of the SCUS. It has no connection to the Constitution.

[Author]

Posts