PDA

View Full Version : ADAMSON v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA


aileron
10-25-2007, 6:48 AM
This will upset you. Long read

A taste of the conclusion "We reaffirm the conclusion of the Twining and Palko cases that protection against self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of national citizenship."

http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AdamsonvPeopleCA1947.html

edwardm
10-25-2007, 7:23 AM
Why would it upset anyone? This case is no longer good precedent. Currently all of the 5th Amendment is applicable to the States via the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause, with the exception of the Grand Jury clause.

This will upset you. Long read

A taste of the conclusion "We reaffirm the conclusion of the Twining and Palko cases that protection against self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of national citizenship."

http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AdamsonvPeopleCA1947.html

E Pluribus Unum
10-25-2007, 9:58 AM
Not only that... I agree with it....


If I understand it.... it is saying that EVERYONE has a 5th amendment right... whether a legal citizen or not.

The constitution does not GIVE us rights; we have those rights whether they are in the constitution or not; the constitution simply states SOME of those rights so the government recognises them.

Every soul in this country has the same constitutional rights as anyone else; that is the beautiful thing about this country.

phobos512
10-25-2007, 12:28 PM
Why exactly are we talking about a case from 1947?

aileron
10-26-2007, 6:27 AM
Thought it was a good read,

Look at this.


Nothing has been called to our attention that either the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment or the states that adopted intended its due process clause to draw within its scope the earlier amendments to the Constitution. Palko held that such provisions of the Bill of Rights as were 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,' 302 U.S. at page 325, 58 S.Ct. at pages 151, 152, became secure from state interference by the clause. But it held nothing more.

Then read the dissents.