Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What part of it being the job of the Judicial Branch to interpret the Constitution don't you understand, Acorn?
You're making the same mistake again. And in many cases, so are the judged being called upon. They (and you) seem to believe they are being asekd to find a way the law can be bent ("interpreted") to fit a particular deed or act by the people in question. But they are not. They are being asked to decide how (and if) the people must change their behavior to conform to the law. When judges decide how the law can be changed from what it says, they are shirking and violating their duty. They are not doing their job.They are constantly being called upon to render decisions as to how Constitutional law interacts with everyday enforcement of the law.
I had already addressed this argument, and will do so again: Both the court, and Dershowitz, are making the very mistake I described above, and in a previous post. They are stating that Lerner must pattern her behavior on a previous court precedent, and NOT on what the Constitution actually says.I notice that you've avoided addressing the point I've stressed...that someone who testifies to a specific subject (in this case it was Lois Lerner declaring the she had not violated any of the IRS's rules or regulations) has in the words of the Supreme Court "turned on a spigot that cannot then be turned off". What Dershowitz noted was that in making that statement, Lerner had left herself open to questions related to that statement and the refusal to answer questions about how she enforced the IRS's rules and regulations would have her in contempt of Congress.
You are free to hold that opinion.Courts have disagreed:What part of it being the job of the Judicial Branch to interpret the Constitution don't you understand, Acorn? They are constantly being called upon to render decisions as to how Constitutional law interacts with everyday enforcement of the law. Some of those decisions you obviously don't like but surely you understand that it's a necessary part of our system?
I notice that you've avoided addressing the point I've stressed...that someone who testifies to a specific subject (in this case it was Lois Lerner declaring the she had not violated any of the IRS's rules or regulations) has in the words of the Supreme Court "turned on a spigot that cannot then be turned off". What Dershowitz noted was that in making that statement, Lerner had left herself open to questions related to that statement and the refusal to answer questions about how she enforced the IRS's rules and regulations would have her in contempt of Congress. In simple terms you cannot testify about something and then take the 5th on what your own testimony related to.
To repeat:
SCOTUS has held that the 5th Amendment privilege is available in "any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial,
investigatory or adjudicatory and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used
in a criminal prosecution...."
When the privilege is invoked as part of an investigation, the committee is required to respect it.
Yes, the privilege can be waived. However, for a waiver to be effective, it must be clear and unequivocal, and cannot be "lightly inferred." Further, courts typically indulge every reasonable presumption against finding 'testimonial waiver.'"
Klein v. Harris (1981). See also Quinn v. United States (1955)
Furthermore, voluntarily testifying and and involuntarily testifying play a part in the equation.
In addition, "a waiver typically occurs only when a witness asserts specific facts. Mere proclamations of innocence usually do not suffice.
In United States v. Hoag , the defendant was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. When asked,
"If the Communist Party ordered you to sabotage the work you are doing, assuming that we were at war with Communist Russia, would you obey those orders or would you refuse to obey them?" In response, the defendant stated, "I have never engaged in espionage nor sabotage. I am not so engaged. I will not so engage in the future. I am not a spy nor a saboteur." She thereafter invoked her Fifth Amendment right. The court, relying in part on the New York Court of Appeals in People ex rel. Taylor v. Forbes held that the defendant did not waive her Fifth Amendment right by virtue of her general denial." link
In addition, she was asked to make an opening statement.
With all due respect, Paper...you're quoting case law from 1956.
Yes, Lois Lerner was asked to make an opening statement. She was not told what to include in that statement. What she DID that day was make the case that she in no way broke the rules and regulations of the IRS in the investigations of groups with names including things like Tea Party and Liberty. Once she did so she's opened the spigot on that topic and cannot then turn around and refuse to answer questions about a topic that SHE introduced!
What part of it being the job of the Judicial Branch to interpret the Constitution don't you understand, Acorn?
Didn't even read the essay, did we?
Or didn't understand it.
Or chose to ignore it (I suspect this is what happened).
As I pointed out, you are making the same mistake that most others make. It is NOT the job of the courts to fit the Constitution to real life. It's the job of the courts to decide how real life fits to the Constitution.
The reason we have a written Constitution, is so that it will not change, except by methods spelled out inside it. In particular, it won't be changed by events in real life. Instead, in the rare events where people's behavior conflicts with what the Constitution says, the people must change their behavior. (People changing their behavior in this way, is called "obeying the law".) The courts must NOT change (or, as you euphemistically describe it, "interpret") the Constitution instead.
You're making the same mistake again. And in many cases, so are the judged being called upon. They (and you) seem to believe they are being asekd to find a way the law can be bent ("interpreted") to fit a particular deed or act by the people in question. But they are not. They are being asked to decide how (and if) the people must change their behavior to conform to the law. When judges decide how the law can be changed from what it says, they are shirking and violating their duty. They are not doing their job.They are constantly being called upon to render decisions as to how Constitutional law interacts with everyday enforcement of the law.
I had already addressed this argument, and will do so again: Both the court, and Dershowitz, are making the very mistake I described above, and in a previous post. They are stating that Lerner must pattern her behavior on a previous court precedent, and NOT on what the Constitution actually says.I notice that you've avoided addressing the point I've stressed...that someone who testifies to a specific subject (in this case it was Lois Lerner declaring the she had not violated any of the IRS's rules or regulations) has in the words of the Supreme Court "turned on a spigot that cannot then be turned off". What Dershowitz noted was that in making that statement, Lerner had left herself open to questions related to that statement and the refusal to answer questions about how she enforced the IRS's rules and regulations would have her in contempt of Congress.
When the existing court presedents diverge from what the Constitution says so widely, there comes a point where you must throw out the precedents. A court ruling that does exactly that, would be an ideal way to get us back to Constitutional adherence. But as I stated earlier, I don't expect that to happen any time soon. But its likelihood (or lack thereof) doesn't make throwing out those mistaken precedents, any less necessary or vital.
That lying swiness Lerner could stand up in the hearing (or in a courtroom) and say, "I hereby formally waive my rights under the 5th amendment to refuse to answer questions that may incriminate me" ten times. And then say a number of things that DO incriminate her. And then the next day she could say "I've changed my mind, I don't want to answer any more questions after all, so I won't, based on my rights under the 5th amendment"... and the prosecutors could do NOTHING to force her to talk. They could certainly use the incriminating things she has already said, against her. But they can't make her say one more thing in addition, nor throw her in jail beause she clammed up at that point. The fact that they prosectors will miss out on a chance to cross-examine her on the things she said yesterday, is too bad. The 5th makes no allowances for that, so they are out of luck. They can only throw her in jail for the incriminating things she said yesterday.
Things are different in a courtroom vs a congressional panel.Courts have disagreed:
To repeat:
SCOTUS has held that the 5th Amendment privilege is available in "any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial,
investigatory or adjudicatory and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used
in a criminal prosecution...."
When the privilege is invoked as part of an investigation, the committee is required to respect it.
Yes, the privilege can be waived. However, for a waiver to be effective, it must be clear and unequivocal, and cannot be "lightly inferred." Further, courts typically indulge every reasonable presumption against finding 'testimonial waiver.'"
Klein v. Harris (1981). See also Quinn v. United States (1955)
Furthermore, voluntarily testifying and and involuntarily testifying play a part in the equation.
In addition, "a waiver typically occurs only when a witness asserts specific facts. Mere proclamations of innocence usually do not suffice.
In United States v. Hoag , the defendant was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. When asked,
"If the Communist Party ordered you to sabotage the work you are doing, assuming that we were at war with Communist Russia, would you obey those orders or would you refuse to obey them?" In response, the defendant stated, "I have never engaged in espionage nor sabotage. I am not so engaged. I will not so engage in the future. I am not a spy nor a saboteur." She thereafter invoked her Fifth Amendment right. The court, relying in part on the New York Court of Appeals in People ex rel. Taylor v. Forbes held that the defendant did not waive her Fifth Amendment right by virtue of her general denial." link
In addition, she was asked to make an opening statement.
With all due respect, Paper...you're quoting case law from 1956.
Yes, Lois Lerner was asked to make an opening statement. She was not told what to include in that statement. What she DID that day was make the case that she in no way broke the rules and regulations of the IRS in the investigations of groups with names including things like Tea Party and Liberty. Once she did so she's opened the spigot on that topic and cannot then turn around and refuse to answer questions about a topic that SHE introduced!
in one sentence....
You cannot say "I did nothing wrong" and then refuse to answer the question of what it is that you did.
That is CLASSIC contempt.
I believe you are wrong.;
Whereas they can not insist she answers questions on other topics, she is compelled to answer questions on the topic she had already spoken about.
For example...
when she said "I did nothing wrong"
She opened the door to having to answer the question of
"what is it that you did that was not wrong"
I believe you are wrong.;
Whereas they can not insist she answers questions on other topics, she is compelled to answer questions on the topic she had already spoken about.
For example...
when she said "I did nothing wrong"
She opened the door to having to answer the question of
"what is it that you did that was not wrong"
Believe what you like.
And as soon as you can point out a law in the Constitution (or that supersedes the Constitution) that says they can do what you described, I'll believe it too, and agree with you.
But the 5th amendment says she can clam up any time she wants, as long as she can claim an answer might incriminate her (and she can say that about literally anything).
And no one has yet pointed out anything that supersedes that.
But the day is young.
Things are different in a courtroom vs a congressional panel.With all due respect, Paper...you're quoting case law from 1956.
Yes, Lois Lerner was asked to make an opening statement. She was not told what to include in that statement. What she DID that day was make the case that she in no way broke the rules and regulations of the IRS in the investigations of groups with names including things like Tea Party and Liberty. Once she did so she's opened the spigot on that topic and cannot then turn around and refuse to answer questions about a topic that SHE introduced!
in one sentence....
You cannot say "I did nothing wrong" and then refuse to answer the question of what it is that you did.
That is CLASSIC contempt.
Here, let a Fifth Amendment expert explain it:
Explain itGowdys outraged objection was met with applause in the courtroom. But James Duane, a Fifth Amendment expert at Regent University, says Gowdys claim was extremely imaginative but mistaken.Expert: Lerner Didn't Waive Right to Plead Fifth -- Daily Intelligencer
Had this been an actual criminal trial, in an actual courtroom, and had Lerner been an actual defendant, then yes, it would not have been permissible for her to testify in her own defense and then refuse cross-examination on Fifth Amendment grounds. But a congressional hearing is not a criminal trial in two important ways, Duane tells Daily Intelligencer.
First, unlike in a trial, where she could choose to take the stand or not, Lerner had no choice but to appear before the committee. Second, in a trial there would be a justifiable concern about compromising a judge or jury by providing them with selective, partial presentation of the facts. But Congress is merely pursuing information as part of an investigation, not making a definitive ruling on Lerners guilt or innocence.
When somebody is in this situation, says Duane, a Harvard Law graduate whose 2008 lecture on invoking the Fifth Amendment with police has been viewed on YouTube nearly 2.5 million times, when they are involuntarily summoned before grand jury or before legislative body, it is well settled that they have a right to make a selective invocation, as its called, with respect to questions that they think might raise a meaningful risk of incriminating themselves.
\
In fact, Duane says, even if Ms. Lerner had given answers to a few questions five, ten, twenty questions before she decided, Thats where I draw the line, Im not answering any more questions, she would be able to do that as well. Such uses of selective invocation happen all the time.
Then explain this....
The best thing a defendant can do is testify by answering questions of his lawyer. It allows him to explain his position in a non adversarial exchange that is designed to make him look innocent.
However, the worst thing a defendant can do is to testify by answering questions of the opposing attorney/prosecutor for it will be demanding and aggressive and possibly make him look guilty.
So many...especially those that appear to be guilty, do not testify for fear of how they will look after the questioning of the opposing attorney.
So why don't they have their own attorney question them and then simply plead the 5th when it is time for cross examination?
You happen to be mistaken. You are correct to a point....but once she mentions ANYTHING as it pertained to the investigation, she waived her rights for whatever it is she discussed.
For example....once she said "I did nothing wrong" she opened the door to having to answer questions of "what is it that you did that you deem is not wrong"
I suggest you get a better understanding of what it is you are debating.
Then explain this....
The best thing a defendant can do is testify by answering questions of his lawyer. It allows him to explain his position in a non adversarial exchange that is designed to make him look innocent.
However, the worst thing a defendant can do is to testify by answering questions of the opposing attorney/prosecutor for it will be demanding and aggressive and possibly make him look guilty.
So many...especially those that appear to be guilty, do not testify for fear of how they will look after the questioning of the opposing attorney.
So why don't they have their own attorney question them and then simply plead the 5th when it is time for cross examination?
You happen to be mistaken. You are correct to a point....but once she mentions ANYTHING as it pertained to the investigation, she waived her rights for whatever it is she discussed.
For example....once she said "I did nothing wrong" she opened the door to having to answer questions of "what is it that you did that you deem is not wrong"
I suggest you get a better understanding of what it is you are debating.
Exactly where does it say that in the 5th amendment?
Or have you simply offered your opinion based on your interpretation of the 5th amendment?
If you knew anything about the study of Constitutional law you'd know that the interpretation of the passage you keep quoting has kept different Supreme Courts busy since the way back in the 60's. The 5th Amendment was judged to have a different meaning before Miranda v Arizona than it did after. The wording in the Constitution remained the same but the INTERPRETATION of it changed.
Meaning, after getting it right for a while, the courts started getting it wrong. But since they used a deliberate and methodical method for going off course, that made it OK.
Curious behavior for an institution whose members swear to uphold the Constitution, not court precedents.
It shows, of course, the destructive effects of those who try to pretend (as most courts do nowadays, and rabbi has been screaming is "the way it is" for days now) that court precedents should supersede what the Constitution actually says.
Way back when courts did their jobs and ruled according to what the Constitution actually says, court verdicts matched its text.
But then the idea of "stare decisis", plus a misguided tendency on the part of judges to compromise, started eroding away at their fealty to the Constitution.
("Stare decisis" is a Latin phrase meaning "to stand by things decided". Courts tend to use it a lot more often than they should. One law-student wit once told me it really means "We stand by our mistakes". He was more right than he may have realized.)
A lawyer with a client who wanted to break the law, brought a case before the courts and argued that their "different interpretation" was the correct one. Lawyers backing the Constitution argued that it was not. And the fence-sitting judge issued a ruling that was a compromise between the two, instead of ruling that the Constitution-supporting lawyer was correct as he should have. And the first step away from true Constitutional adherence was made.
Then the next lawyer with a client who wanted to break the law, brought another case, and once again argued that their "different interpretation" was the correct one. And this time, lawyers steeped in the "stare decisis" religion, did not argue for what the Constitution said. Rather, they argued for what the last decision said. And when the fence-sitting judge issued another compromise between the two as a ruling, a further step away from Constitutional fealty was made.
Case after case was brought, and the courts' "interpretation" moved further and further away from what the Constitution actually said, with each one.
And eventually we had blinders-on zealots such as rabbi, insisting that "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." doesn't mean that at all, but means some crazy schedule of when the person can and can't invoke the very right the 5th was designed to protect, depending on what he last said and when he said it - a schedule that appears nowhere in the 5th amendment. And in a crowning absurdity, they insist that they are telling you what the Constitution "really means"!
If only the officers of the courts had remembered that they had sworn to uphold the Constitution, and not the last court decision, we wouldn't have gotten so badly off track. But here we are, with the blinders-on zealots twisting themselves into strange pretzel shapes trying to pretend that their increasingly odd "interpretations" are no different from what the Constitution actually says.
Notice that rabbi is still avoiding like the plague, answering the question of WHY he believes the 5th amendment doesn't mean what its text says. All he can do is snarl at the person asking the question, call names, and generally insult the messenger. The reason he descends into such barbarity is, of course, that he is wrong, and cannot stand to admit he is wrong, or even consider the possiblity. His entire world of "court interpretation" constructions would come crashing down around his ears, and he would have to re-do most of his legal education to get back on the track of actual Constitutional adherence.
In a way, it's not really his fault... or at least, not much. Entire college curricula are devoted to teaching "Constitutional interpretation", and even make it a required series of courses for a law or pre-law degree. But all they are teaching, is how the courts have MOVED AWAY from the Constitution... and forcing the students to memorize each step in that tortured path, and accept it as an established fact, never to be questions or resisted. Hence their hysterical reactions years later, in forums such as this one.
I don't expect it to end any time soon, any more than I expect savages to give up their beliefs in hideous masks and shaking rattles as medical cures. They have too much belief and dogma tied up in it, to even consider deviating from it now... and a fear of the terrifying unknown that awaits them if they do get away from it.
If you knew anything about the study of Constitutional law you'd know that the interpretation of the passage you keep quoting has kept different Supreme Courts busy since the way back in the 60's. The 5th Amendment was judged to have a different meaning before Miranda v Arizona than it did after. The wording in the Constitution remained the same but the INTERPRETATION of it changed.
Meaning, after getting it right for a while, the courts started getting it wrong. But since they used a deliberate and methodical method for going off course, that made it OK.
Curious behavior for an institution whose members swear to uphold the Constitution, not court precedents.
It shows, of course, the destructive effects of those who try to pretend (as most courts do nowadays, and rabbi has been screaming is "the way it is" for days now) that court precedents should supersede what the Constitution actually says.
Way back when courts did their jobs and ruled according to what the Constitution actually says, court verdicts matched its text.
But then the idea of "stare decisis", plus a misguided tendency on the part of judges to compromise, started eroding away at their fealty to the Constitution.
("Stare decisis" is a Latin phrase meaning "to stand by things decided". Courts tend to use it a lot more often than they should. One law-student wit once told me it really means "We stand by our mistakes". He was more right than he may have realized.)
A lawyer with a client who wanted to break the law, brought a case before the courts and argued that their "different interpretation" was the correct one. Lawyers backing the Constitution argued that it was not. And the fence-sitting judge issued a ruling that was a compromise between the two, instead of ruling that the Constitution-supporting lawyer was correct as he should have. And the first step away from true Constitutional adherence was made.
Then the next lawyer with a client who wanted to break the law, brought another case, and once again argued that their "different interpretation" was the correct one. And this time, lawyers steeped in the "stare decisis" religion, did not argue for what the Constitution said. Rather, they argued for what the last decision said. And when the fence-sitting judge issued another compromise between the two as a ruling, a further step away from Constitutional fealty was made.
Case after case was brought, and the courts' "interpretation" moved further and further away from what the Constitution actually said, with each one.
And eventually we had blinders-on zealots such as rabbi, insisting that "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." doesn't mean that at all, but means some crazy schedule of when the person can and can't invoke the very right the 5th was designed to protect, depending on what he last said and when he said it - a schedule that appears nowhere in the 5th amendment. And in a crowning absurdity, they insist that they are telling you what the Constitution "really means"!
If only the officers of the courts had remembered that they had sworn to uphold the Constitution, and not the last court decision, we wouldn't have gotten so badly off track. But here we are, with the blinders-on zealots twisting themselves into strange pretzel shapes trying to pretend that their increasingly odd "interpretations" are no different from what the Constitution actually says.
Notice that rabbi is still avoiding like the plague, answering the question of WHY he believes the 5th amendment doesn't mean what its text says. All he can do is snarl at the person asking the question, call names, and generally insult the messenger. The reason he descends into such barbarity is, of course, that he is wrong, and cannot stand to admit he is wrong, or even consider the possiblity. His entire world of "court interpretation" constructions would come crashing down around his ears, and he would have to re-do most of his legal education to get back on the track of actual Constitutional adherence.
In a way, it's not really his fault... or at least, not much. Entire college curricula are devoted to teaching "Constitutional interpretation", and even make it a required series of courses for a law or pre-law degree. But all they are teaching, is how the courts have MOVED AWAY from the Constitution... and forcing the students to memorize each step in that tortured path, and accept it as an established fact, never to be questions or resisted. Hence their hysterical reactions years later, in forums such as this one.
I don't expect it to end any time soon, any more than I expect savages to give up their beliefs in hideous masks and shaking rattles as medical cures. They have too much belief and dogma tied up in it, to even consider deviating from it now... and a fear of the terrifying unknown that awaits them if they do get away from it.
rabbi is till avoiding answering the question:
Meaning, after getting it right for a while, the courts started getting it wrong. But since they used a deliberate and methodical method for going off course, that made it OK.
Curious behavior for an institution whose members swear to uphold the Constitution, not court precedents.
It shows, of course, the destructive effects of those who try to pretend (as most courts do nowadays, and rabbi has been screaming is "the way it is" for days now) that court precedents should supersede what the Constitution actually says.
Way back when courts did their jobs and ruled according to what the Constitution actually says, court verdicts matched its text.
But then the idea of "stare decisis", plus a misguided tendency on the part of judges to compromise, started eroding away at their fealty to the Constitution.
("Stare decisis" is a Latin phrase meaning "to stand by things decided". Courts tend to use it a lot more often than they should. One law-student wit once told me it really means "We stand by our mistakes". He was more right than he may have realized.)
A lawyer with a client who wanted to break the law, brought a case before the courts and argued that their "different interpretation" was the correct one. Lawyers backing the Constitution argued that it was not. And the fence-sitting judge issued a ruling that was a compromise between the two, instead of ruling that the Constitution-supporting lawyer was correct as he should have. And the first step away from true Constitutional adherence was made.
Then the next lawyer with a client who wanted to break the law, brought another case, and once again argued that their "different interpretation" was the correct one. And this time, lawyers steeped in the "stare decisis" religion, did not argue for what the Constitution said. Rather, they argued for what the last decision said. And when the fence-sitting judge issued another compromise between the two as a ruling, a further step away from Constitutional fealty was made.
Case after case was brought, and the courts' "interpretation" moved further and further away from what the Constitution actually said, with each one.
And eventually we had blinders-on zealots such as rabbi, insisting that "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." doesn't mean that at all, but means some crazy schedule of when the person can and can't invoke the very right the 5th was designed to protect, depending on what he last said and when he said it - a schedule that appears nowhere in the 5th amendment. And in a crowning absurdity, they insist that they are telling you what the Constitution "really means"!
If only the officers of the courts had remembered that they had sworn to uphold the Constitution, and not the last court decision, we wouldn't have gotten so badly off track. But here we are, with the blinders-on zealots twisting themselves into strange pretzel shapes trying to pretend that their increasingly odd "interpretations" are no different from what the Constitution actually says.
Notice that rabbi is still avoiding like the plague, answering the question of WHY he believes the 5th amendment doesn't mean what its text says. All he can do is snarl at the person asking the question, call names, and generally insult the messenger. The reason he descends into such barbarity is, of course, that he is wrong, and cannot stand to admit he is wrong, or even consider the possiblity. His entire world of "court interpretation" constructions would come crashing down around his ears, and he would have to re-do most of his legal education to get back on the track of actual Constitutional adherence.
In a way, it's not really his fault... or at least, not much. Entire college curricula are devoted to teaching "Constitutional interpretation", and even make it a required series of courses for a law or pre-law degree. But all they are teaching, is how the courts have MOVED AWAY from the Constitution... and forcing the students to memorize each step in that tortured path, and accept it as an established fact, never to be questions or resisted. Hence their hysterical reactions years later, in forums such as this one.
I don't expect it to end any time soon, any more than I expect savages to give up their beliefs in hideous masks and shaking rattles as medical cures. They have too much belief and dogma tied up in it, to even consider deviating from it now... and a fear of the terrifying unknown that awaits them if they do get away from it.
rabbi is still avoiding answering the question: Please explain further your stated belief that the 5th amendment's text "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." means anything other than "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
But since he keeps popping up to deliver occasional sneers and accusations without backup instead (as usual), I guess I'll keep reminding him.
Question is moot.
Then explain this....
The best thing a defendant can do is testify by answering questions of his lawyer. It allows him to explain his position in a non adversarial exchange that is designed to make him look innocent.
However, the worst thing a defendant can do is to testify by answering questions of the opposing attorney/prosecutor for it will be demanding and aggressive and possibly make him look guilty.
So many...especially those that appear to be guilty, do not testify for fear of how they will look after the questioning of the opposing attorney.
So why don't they have their own attorney question them and then simply plead the 5th when it is time for cross examination?
You happen to be mistaken. You are correct to a point....but once she mentions ANYTHING as it pertained to the investigation, she waived her rights for whatever it is she discussed.
For example....once she said "I did nothing wrong" she opened the door to having to answer questions of "what is it that you did that you deem is not wrong"
I suggest you get a better understanding of what it is you are debating.
Exactly where does it say that in the 5th amendment?
Or have you simply offered your opinion based on your interpretation of the 5th amendment?
rabbi is still avoiding answering the question: Please explain further your stated belief that the 5th amendment's text "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." means anything other than "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
But since he keeps popping up to deliver occasional sneers and accusations without backup instead (as usual), I guess I'll keep reminding him.
Question is moot.
That sound you just heard was rabbi running away from the debate at high speed, with his tail tucked tightly between his hind legs.
While others are insisting that Lois Lerner should be held to answer further questions about the questionable things she has voluntarily said to the Congressional committee, rabbi apparently believes that same standard should not be applied to himself.
Why do you keep referring to Lerner as if she is defendant? She's not.Then explain this....
The best thing a defendant can do is testify by answering questions of his lawyer. It allows him to explain his position in a non adversarial exchange that is designed to make him look innocent.
However, the worst thing a defendant can do is to testify by answering questions of the opposing attorney/prosecutor for it will be demanding and aggressive and possibly make him look guilty.
So many...especially those that appear to be guilty, do not testify for fear of how they will look after the questioning of the opposing attorney.
So why don't they have their own attorney question them and then simply plead the 5th when it is time for cross examination?
You happen to be mistaken. You are correct to a point....but once she mentions ANYTHING as it pertained to the investigation, she waived her rights for whatever it is she discussed.
For example....once she said "I did nothing wrong" she opened the door to having to answer questions of "what is it that you did that you deem is not wrong"
I suggest you get a better understanding of what it is you are debating.
Exactly where does it say that in the 5th amendment?
Or have you simply offered your opinion based on your interpretation of the 5th amendment?
interesting.
You ignored the example and asked where it says that in the 5th amendment.
I am not a constitutional scholar. I do not know.
But.....
I know that defendants do not testify out of fear that the prosecution will make them look guilty.....yet, they would love to testify so their attorneys can ask the right questions showing innocence.
But they don't.
Why?
Why do you keep referring to Lerner as if she is defendant? She's not.Exactly where does it say that in the 5th amendment?
Or have you simply offered your opinion based on your interpretation of the 5th amendment?
interesting.
You ignored the example and asked where it says that in the 5th amendment.
I am not a constitutional scholar. I do not know.
But.....
I know that defendants do not testify out of fear that the prosecution will make them look guilty.....yet, they would love to testify so their attorneys can ask the right questions showing innocence.
But they don't.
Why?
I noted on several occasions there is a difference between court proceedings and congressional hearings.
rabbi is still avoiding answering the question: Please explain further your stated belief that the 5th amendment's text "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." means anything other than "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
But since he keeps popping up to deliver occasional sneers and accusations without backup instead (as usual), I guess I'll keep reminding him.
Question is moot.
That sound you just heard was rabbi running away from the debate at high speed, with his tail tucked tightly between his hind legs.
While others are insisting that Lois Lerner should be held to answer further questions about the questionable things she has voluntarily said to the Congressional committee, rabbi apparently believes that same standard should not be applied to himself.
Somehow Dersherwitz opinion is solid and above criticism, but a 5th Amendment scholar's opinion doesn't matter. Hmm.Why do you keep referring to Lerner as if she is defendant? She's not.interesting.
You ignored the example and asked where it says that in the 5th amendment.
I am not a constitutional scholar. I do not know.
But.....
I know that defendants do not testify out of fear that the prosecution will make them look guilty.....yet, they would love to testify so their attorneys can ask the right questions showing innocence.
But they don't.
Why?
I noted on several occasions there is a difference between court proceedings and congressional hearings.
yes, you did say that. And I asked exactly where does it say that in the 5th amendment? You never answered.
You quoted James Duane. But was that his interpretation, opinion or is it actually stated that way in the Constitution?
Again, stating it does not make it true. I would like to know where you and Duane saw it as stated as fact.
Somehow Dersherwitz opinion is solid and above criticism, but a 5th Amendment scholar's opinion doesn't matter. Hmm.Why do you keep referring to Lerner as if she is defendant? She's not.
I noted on several occasions there is a difference between court proceedings and congressional hearings.
yes, you did say that. And I asked exactly where does it say that in the 5th amendment? You never answered.
You quoted James Duane. But was that his interpretation, opinion or is it actually stated that way in the Constitution?
Again, stating it does not make it true. I would like to know where you and Duane saw it as stated as fact.
The Founders didn't put every single instance of when where and how. You know that. They wrote a carefully crafted Amendment -- and case law is what defines how it is to be interpreted when issues arise. I produced some case law, and an expert adds to explain.
Seriously, you're too smart to not know that.
