Miranda v. Arizona from Thinkwell's American Government

[jacobfox2000]

Holy crap, this is my professor. Professor Rosenberg is an excellent scholar and quite a good lecturer as well.

[ThinkwellVids]

@jacobfox2000 Lucky you! His lectures are so good and He really cares about his subject. I bet you have really enjoyed taking his class!

[jacobfox2000]

@ThinkwellVids I've taken all four of his undergraduate classes at the University of Chicago, and I plan on trying to return to the Law School to take a few more if I can.

[wtong89]

I rather have some guilty go to prison and some dont than to have all guilty with some innocents that go to prison.

I hope that make sense?

[ThinkwellVids]

@wtong89 I think so. Basically you are saying, it's better to not send innocent people to prison and have some guilty people slip through the system than imprison all the guilty people along with innocents because of the system. It's a hard balance to manage and one I think our courts struggle with everyday.

[kombatmaster7]

Great Video, I needed this for a presentation on the Miranda case, thanks!

[ningalex]

this is helpful thanks for uploading it

[officerirwin]

The point of three separate but equal branches in America is so that no one branch could be more powerful than another. The Legislative branch is supposed to make laws, not the Judicial branch. The Judicial branch is supposed to abide by what law is currently written, and thus court president law is unconstitutional in its self. Most Supreme Court Justices had this very thought prior to President Wilson and FDR.

Miranda is, at least in my mind, an unconstitutional law.

[gilbygil11]

your understanding of the constitutional framework of this great country could not be more pedestrian. Justice Marshall stated, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" - Marbury v. Madison (1803)

under the common law, judges are called to interpret the law. very often you will find hypocrites who praise this power when they agree with the court and decry it when they don't. you, sir, are in desperate need of a basic civics lesson...

[officerirwin]

Yes In deed sir, a desparate need of a civics lesson. Personal attacks so little class, sir.

I have no issue with Justices interpreting the law, and infact thats something we both can agree on; however my personal political beliefs are that Justices are not to make precident laws, thats up to the legislation to make law on the recomendation of the Courts, the President, and the public.

[gilbygil11]

Your comment was that the judicial branch was only to "abide" by what the law is. That is an incorrect statement. Whether you feel that my correction of your mistake was personal or not, I did not make an ad hominem attack as you just did in your reply. But its clear that I am waging a battle of wits with the unarmed... the fact remains that in our system, judges in fact are able to interpret the law, and in so doing, may alter its application. Thus they do not make the law.

[DarwinsHamster]

In this day and age, the objections to the Miranda requirements sound pretty lame.

[officerirwin]

Most Americans think three separate but equal branches of our government is pretty lame. They think the President is God like. That the legistaltion should just do what ever. And the Courts can over rule any law they see fit (Roe v Wade).

[Tohil9]

You mean Anglo/american?

[OnionInYourHouse]

why doesnt this have way more views?

[pinkfloyddwc]

That was great!

I always wondered where that came from! Thank you :)