Does the Constitution...

[Zero]

...say anything about murder?

[GENIERE]

As originally framed, the constitution was a vehicle to limit the powers of the federal government. Criminal law enforcement was delegated to the states via the first amendment. Over the years the state courts have become increasingly federalized.

[Zero]

Originally posted by GENIERE
As originally framed, the constitution was a vehicle to limit the powers of the federal government. Criminal law enforcement was delegated to the states via the first amendment. Over the years the state courts have become increasingly federalized. That doesn't answer my question.

[Jonathan]

Well, no, but the fifth amendment specifically mentions capital crimes, if that's not too vague. Go to: http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html

[Zero]

Is there anything about speeding tickets?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Is there anything about speeding tickets? No. I'm curious about where you are going with this...

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
No. I'm curious about where you are going with this... I'n just asking questions...like, is the right to remain silent(and the rest of Miranda) in the Constitution?

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by Zero
I'n just asking questions...like, is the right to remain silent(and the rest of Miranda) in the Constitution?

Article III of the constitution sets up the judiciary, topped off by the Supreme Court. Since judges by definition interpret the law, the Supreme Court decided it had the duty to interpret what the constitution means (Marbury vs. Madison). Like it or lump it that is the present state of the constitutional law.

And the Bill of Rights does state that the citizens are to be free of arbitrary search and seizure, and that they are not to be required to testify against themselves (Fifth Amendment). So the S.C. years ago decided that that meant that people who were arrested were to be told of their right to remain silent, so as not to incriminate themselves and of their right to an attorney. The reason the S.C. could dictate to the states this way, in spite of the tenth amendment that makes the states the final arbiters of their own laws, is the fourteenth amendment, which says the states are to supply "republican government" (not meaning the party of course but the form of gevernment). In fact, since that was now in the constituion, the S.C. was empowered to interpret it: hence Miranda.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
I'n just asking questions... Uh huh.... questions with obvious answers. C'mon, out with it.

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Uh huh.... questions with obvious answers. C'mon, out with it. No, you just answer my questions, or not, as you see fit.

Is there, for instance, anything in the Constitution that involves how to go about getting married or divorced?

[Jonathan]

I gave you the link to a nice site, look for yourself.

[Carlos Hernandez]

The Constitution, as seen in the eyes of Americans, is an outdated man-made piece of paper that does not really apply today. Both the elites and average think the Constitution should change as society changes. I somewhat agree to that, but not completely. I do fully support the first amendment, I think we need some restrictions on the second amendment (individuals should not own own nukes, bio/chem weapons), and I don't know about the rest.

[HAVOC451]

Originally posted by Carlos Hernandez
The Constitution, as seen in the eyes of Americans, is an outdated man-made piece of paper that does not really apply today.

Please, try not to paint with such a broad brush. Some of us Americans consider the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence to be among the most important documents ever to be penned by mankind.