Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "LegalEagle" channel.

@rickhodges4808 "Miranda rights" are a misnomer. I wish they were rights. They are considered a "prophylaxis" to ensure that Fifth Amendment rights are not infringed, but they themselves are not rights. When the Court decided no one could sue for damages for being deprived of the benefit of the Miranda warning, it made that clear. It was not a unanimous decision, by the way. But I bet you knew that! :/
4
@robinsss NO lawyer ever cites the Declaration of Independence to a judge. He might to a jury, for its persuasive power. He never will cite it to a court as law, unless he is so clueless as to be objectively incompetent.
3
@Skank_and_Gutterboy The fact that a body of common law determines what the Constitution actually means. Because we are not living under a Napoleonic Code or a descendant of Roman Law. Because we are an Anglo-Saxon common law jurisdiction that places great emphasis on Supreme Court interpretation of what our laws mean and give the Court ultimate authority on the question.
3
@rickhodges4808 I think you're right about that. And you're right that it doesn't matter. Just sharing my disappointment, but I'm not surprised. Not massively, hopelessly unjust, at least not this time. :/
3
That's because being told that the US Supreme Court is the final arbiter concerning what things like "cruel and unusual punishment," "unreasonable searches and seizures," "witness against himself," " privileges or immunities of citizens," "due process of law," and "equal protection of the laws," among other things, mean in real life is something people apparently don't know and refuse to grasp. (Hmm, look in the mirror?)
2
Funny that people don't understand the main feature of our legal culture -- that we DO NOT rely solely on texts and codification. That is not what the English-speaking countries usually do. In a certain sense, the Constitution is the starting point for a common law based on the interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. It is not a Napoleonic Code, nor is it a descendant of any code. Anyone who says anything different is misleading you. Britain's constitution isn't even written, yet it exists.
1
@nerowolfe736 Global investment banking interests quashed that possibility. No politics in the US is ever local, for that reason. Greece should be an object lesson.
1
@philosophicalcounselor-m6c The Constitution mentions no Creator. Nor did the Bill of Rights originally apply to any state.
1
@Snavels Well, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights originally could be infringed BY THE SEVERAL STATES. Only the federal government was prohibited from infringing them. (Did you know that?) So, how were they "God given?" Obviously, a state could disagree. The abolition of slavery curtailed the "right" to own slaves. So, was that the curtailment of an inalienable "God given" right? Or a property right? A contractual right? A right to engage in freedom of commerce? Please tell us about that.
1
@emmittmatthews8636 Originally, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, but only stated what the federal government could not do. When it was extended to the states, did that confer rights? This becomes an empty argument very fast. Property is conferred by state law. Once ownership is vested, laws protect that ownership, but there is no "divine right" or "natural right" of property beyond your own body, and the latter might be questionable. When someone has a net worth of a billion and is bankrupt the next day, you should think about what that actually means. Nothing natural about it.
1
@emmittmatthews8636 Then read it again, and put aside your gotcha mind when you do. What I believe or don't believe was hardly the point. Nor do I have an "angle." Some things are facts. Fact-things are not determined by our heartfelt beliefs about them, but exist independently of those beliefs.
1
@emmittmatthews8636 No. You just don't understand the basics of our constitutional system. That's fine. You aren't supposed to. If you did lyao, could it be the drugs?
1
@emmittmatthews8636 Let me ask you a math question. Is there some "natural" way to accumulate $4.5 million dollars a day, literally every day, from birth to age 55? Explain your answer.
1
@emmittmatthews8636 More pearls before . . . ? No. No one is paying me for this, and I have a great book to get back to. Yawn. Blocked.
1
@MMGJ10 Did you lose Waldo? blocked Keep it up, I love to clean out my threads.
1
@timothycarey3883 What do you mean "held accountable for their words?" If you mean that any speech that is First Amendment protected can nevertheless be subject to a successful lawsuit for damages, that is flat-out wrong. No branch of government can impose penalties of any sort, even civil penalties, on First Amendment protected speech. Nor can any branch of government collude with private actors to censor speech the government itself cannot censor because the censorship would violate the First Amendment. Government cannot use new media as its cat's paw, to do what it cannot do directly. Well, not legally anyway. Consequences for bad speech are generally more speech, not government censorship. When MSM stated that the Hunter Biden laptop story was probably Russian misinformation, and they turned out to be wrong, do you think they should face "consequences?" Not legal consequences imposed by the government, no -- they have a right to be wrong. Major embarrassment and a commitment not to repeat the error, I hope so, but no one can force that on them for their (factually wrong but nevertheless protected) speech, either.
1
@slypperyfox Great. Someone explain to me how the Second Amendment is natural or God-given or in any way fails to presuppose a social order and a level of technology that did not exist in all times and places where humans lived in groups. Or the due process rights embodied in the Fifth Amendment. Or even the right to remain silent. We frequently see people consider the exercise of the right to remain silent to be hugely immoral. Please explain how God gave us that right.
1
@emmittmatthews8636 He who mentions "meds" must be thinking of them for some reason. They never cross my mind.
1
@professorronin9648 How is the right to remain silent "God-given, natural, or universal?" Its exercise is obviously unethical under many circumstances -- yet it remains one of the most precious we have. It exist as long as we are willing to defend it. How is the Fourth Amendment right to be free of "unreasonable searches and seizures" God-given, natural, or universal? The meaning of "unreasonable" is relative. That's why today, the government can put cameras in any public place, totally blanketing any such area with 24/7 surveillance. That wasn't always considered "reasonable." A lot of people don't consider it reasonable now, me included.
1
@slypperyfox Miranda is not a "code" but a prophylactic rule to ensure that 5th Amendment rights are respected. You cannot sue for a violation of rights only on the basis of a failure to administer Miranda warnings. In any case, you miss my point: people consider maintaining silence by pleading the 5th to be MORALLY wrong. Hence it is not generally thought to be a God-given or natural right, but something we have decided to grant. The Supreme Court recently spoke on that, just a few months ago. If weapons have existed since the dawn of man, then why are AR-15 constitutionally protected now? Go back to something more natural. There is nothing natural about an AR-15, a Beretta, a luger, a Colt, etc. I don't see how cutsie slogans help your argument, caps or not.
1
@slypperyfox What is an "unreasonable" search? Do we ask God? Is there a natural, universal meaning to "unreasonable search and seizure?" Maybe not, huh?
1
@slypperyfox The Second Amendment does not mention the individual right to self-defense. Even if we did not have the Second Amendment, even if they managed to repeal it somehow, that would not eliminate the individual right to self-defense. Before the Second Amendment was interpreted as giving individual people a right to carry a firearm outside and away from their own property or dwelling, people still had a right to self-defense.
1
@slypperyfox Read Second Amendment Supreme Court jurisprudence. Read the seminal cases in order. That's where you find the law. What in particular do you think is in the Federalist Papers that supports a "natural law" theory, especially regarding the Second Amendment? Up until quite recently, few lawyers and judges thought it meant that ordinary individuals had a right to concealed carry outside their homes. So, which version is God-given or natural? I see you have nothing to say about the Fourth and Fifth Amendments (one relies on a very human definition of reasonableness, not a divine, immutable one, and the other enshrines a right to remain silent that many, if not most, think is immoral to exercise . . . hmm). You have not thought this through.
1
@timothycarey3883 In general, you're right, a private entity is under no obligation to provide anyone with a platform, that's the general rule. But could the telephone company use that rule to deny service to Trumpers, Communists, or supporters of BDS? No, they can't. A monopoly or near-monopoly of an essential service can't do that. Nor can government muscle social media companies to indirectly censor the accounts the government itself cannot censor directly. That is also illegal. Who is the "they" who should shut it all down? Odd statement. The government can't. These companies have features of both monopolies and common carriers. They are a new kind of creature and already have benefited from very favorable regulation. (BTW: I never joined Facebook, Twitter, Linked In, etc., and only joined this during the lockdowns to save videos.)
1
@timothycarey3883 Trumpers are generally insane on the topic of DJT; I would expect massive inconsistencies and zero self-reflection.
1
@timothycarey3883 Actually, they are under no legal obligation to stop misinformation. WHO should provide "oversight?" The government can only provide MORE speech, and better speech; it cannot censor existing speech as long as it falls under First Amendment protection. I compared the telephone company to social media in ONE respect only: its right to refuse telephone service to individuals because of their political opinions. The telephone company cannot do that. I don't think any essential communications service should have that right. Banning a person, as opposed to removing specific materials, functions as a prior restraint on that person. I don't support that. Well, a bunch of my post just got erased. This is futile anyway. Do whatever you want, no one cares anymore.
1
@timothycarey3883 If the New York Times persists in spreading misinformation about WMDs in places they don't exist, and hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of human lives are lost and entire countries are destroyed as a result, should the New York Times be banned? Do you realize how many legitimate stories they have suppressed, and how much misinformation they knowingly spread? BTW, how do you think the social media company founders became overnight billionaires? It was not by helping families share photos. Families could already do that. It was by stirring controversy -- the same reason Trump got massive amounts of news coverage in 2015 and 2016 in the mainstream press. They helped to create him, then blamed Russia. Did the Russians make the mainstream media give him a couple of billions of dollars worth of coverage? No, it was the ad revenues that did it. Go back and research that. You know how Facebook started, right? It was an electronic slam book aimed at Harvard women. You make it to Harvard, and that's what you get. I never joined.
1
@timothycarey3883 Hear what on what? You don't sound well. One great-grandparent died in the Holocaust. You should think to watch it with that rhetoric, buddy.
1
@timothycarey3883 You have no right to strike someone because you don't like what they said. That is an assault. Social media is in your house because you invited it in. I can turn off my computer now. The First Amendment never said people had to like what you have to say. On the contrary, it also enshrines freedom of association. If people speak freely, you will find out who you might like and who you might want to avoid a lot faster. For example, you. I'm blocking you from my thread as a person who has wasted my time.
1
@nerowolfe736 Originalism is nonsense in a common law culture. It's reading the Constitution as though it were code law, which it is not. The Civil War ended the fiction that the States had great latitude in how they ordered their societies, and the Supremacy Clause was part of the Constitution from the start. (Art. VI, clause 2) Did you miss that part?
1
@bobbysmela3942 SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT you fool. We have had a federal income tax as part of the Constitution for over a century.
1
@MangoHillCommunityFarm 👏
1
That you cannot be found civilly liable for First Amendment-protected speech (or writing), no matter who it may hurt. The speech must either be constitutionally unprotected, or the defendant must default in some way, to be held responsible to pay damages for his speech. "You can say what you want but you can't escape the consequences" is the new vague slogan. Yes, your private-sector employer can fire you, and your friends can drop you, but a court can't make you pay damages, to anyone, for speech that is constitutionally protected.
1
@russell7445 Excellent points!
1
@Skank_and_Gutterboy Funny that people don't understand the main feature of our legal culture -- that we DO NOT rely solely on texts and codification. That is not what the English-speaking countries usually do. Britain's constitution isn't even written, yet it exists.
1
@allangibson8494 Nowhere did I say it did. Just checked.
1