subpoena to testify, why must you testify?

[EvilBlackGun]

It is the 1st sentence ....

.... in Miranda ruling. Can one invoke Miranda when asked to testify? Can one refuse to be sworn, thus making everything possibly lies?

Silence is absolutely a right, it just isn't specifically spelled out.

You don't need to government to compel someone or something in order for you to be silent.

Life and Liberty are also rights. Although, some of us seem to think they're more privileges.

 

[Bunnykid68]

You just have to do it like Ollie North did. Get immunity, take all the blame

 

[HoughMade]

.... in Miranda ruling. Can one invoke Miranda when asked to testify? Can one refuse to be sworn, thus making everything possibly lies?

No, but Miranda is about warnings about rights, not wht the rights themselves extend to. If you refuse to be sworn, you will not testify and can be held in contempt. Rare, but it happens.

I assume all you who want to refuse to testify in some fashion not sanctioned by law, you don't use my roads, don't call the fire dept., don't send your kids to public school, etc? Testifying while under subpoena according to the law is as much a civic duty as paying taxes. Don't want to be part of society? Please drop out altogether.

 

[nemo97]

Well, you could use the line my exwife used quite a bit when I had her a$$ under oath.. "I don't recall."

 

[poptab]

No, but Miranda is about warnings about rights, not wht the rights themselves extend to. If you refuse to be sworn, you will not testify and can be held in contempt. Rare, but it happens.

I assume all you who want to refuse to testify in some fashion not sanctioned by law, you don't use my roads, don't call the fire dept., don't send your kids to public school, etc? Testifying while under subpoena according to the law is as much a civic duty as paying taxes. Don't want to be part of society? Please drop out altogether.

[ame]http://youtu.be/nTqEePlZiqk[/ame]

 

[EvilBlackGun]

That Law-giver Guy is called Jehovah-God

We are guaranteed our enumerated (not "given") right in the Constitution. God gave them, and our founding fathers wrote them down. The founders believed and said over and over that our Rights are not from or for any earthly king, but of, by, from, and for Righteous and Godly men who obey the God of the Constitution. Libertarians are all going to hell, by that definition. Disprove it, I dare you. Atheism IS libertarianism.

 

[poptab]

We are guaranteed our enumerated (not "given") right in the Constitution. God gave them, and our founding fathers wrote them down. The founders believed and said over and over that our Rights are not from or for any earthly king, but of, by, from, and for Righteous and Godly men who obey the God of the Constitution. Libertarians are all going to hell, by that definition. Disprove it, I dare you. Atheism IS libertarianism.

Are you drunk?

You do know most libertarians ascribe to the Non-aggression Principal? It states that it is wrong to initiate force which is basically a restatement of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Libertarians also do not say that rights come from the government. Some think they come from nature others think they come from God...

and somehow I get the feeling Im feeding the troll or Im missing a joke....

 

[poptab]

Also

[ame]http://youtu.be/eZGtcNcyyTI[/ame]

 

[45calibre]

We are guaranteed our enumerated (not "given") right in the Constitution. God gave them, and our founding fathers wrote them down. The founders believed and said over and over that our Rights are not from or for any earthly king, but of, by, from, and for Righteous and Godly men who obey the God of the Constitution. Libertarians are all going to hell, by that definition. Disprove it, I dare you. Atheism IS libertarianism.

what?

 

[Bunnykid68]

No, but Miranda is about warnings about rights, not wht the rights themselves extend to. If you refuse to be sworn, you will not testify and can be held in contempt. Rare, but it happens.

I assume all you who want to refuse to testify in some fashion not sanctioned by law, you don't use my roads, don't call the fire dept., don't send your kids to public school, etc? Testifying while under subpoena according to the law is as much a civic duty as paying taxes. Don't want to be part of society? Please drop out altogether.

We all pay the taxes for those things you mention though

Civic duty? really? I have no duty to my fellow man but not to violate their God Given rights

 

[IndyDave1776]

The Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

It seems that we have a constitutional obligation in criminal cases but no mention of civil cases.

 

[Bunnykid68]

The Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

It seems that we have a constitutional obligation in criminal cases but no mention of civil cases.

 

[rambone]

Libertarians are all going to hell, by that definition. Disprove it, I dare you.

LOL!!

 

[88GT]

http://youtu.be/nTqEePlZiqk

"When did I sign this "social contract?" I really hate that line. When people say it I think they are either ignorant or stupid. It usually ends up being a measure of both. Best case scenario is neither but with a level of naivete that's off the charts.

 

[dross]

If you are accused under our constitution, you have the RIGHT to compel (force) witnesses to testify.

You also have the right to not have to testify against yourself.

Two different things.

Lets say I'm accused of murder. You know I didn't do it, because you saw me miles away at the time of the crime. You refuse to testify. Must I be put to death because you won't tell the truth about what you know?

We have some duties as citizens. One of them is to tell what we know when the government is bringing its power to bear against our fellow citizens.

 

[poptab]

"When did I sign this "social contract?" I really hate that line. When people say it I think they are either ignorant or stupid. It usually ends up being a measure of both. Best case scenario is neither but with a level of naivete that's off the charts.

Yea Tom Woods is ignorant, stupid and naive.

Do you have anything other than ad hominems or did you just see the title and completely dismiss what he has to say?

.

 

[LP1]

Fall down, have a concussion, and dis-remember all things pertinent.

Do you know her personally? Were you there? Do you know all of the circumstances?

Maybe it was gamesmanship, maybe not. But the FACT is that people who think this way are jumping to conclusions on something about which they have virtually no information.

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Do you know her personally? Were you there? Do you know all of the circumstances?

Maybe it was gamesmanship, maybe not. But the FACT is that people who think this way are jumping to conclusions on something about which they have virtually no information.

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

She is a politician, known liar, thinks she is better than us and since when does a concussion keep anyone from doing much of anything especially just talking.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Do you know her personally? Were you there? Do you know all of the circumstances?

Maybe it was gamesmanship, maybe not. But the FACT is that people who think this way are jumping to conclusions on something about which they have virtually no information.

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

She is a politician, known liar, thinks she is better than us and since when does a concussion keep anyone from doing much of anything especially just talking.

I will start where Bunny left off and continue that the timing is remarkably convenient for a person who has had a number of remarkably timed convenient incidents. After a while you start to doubt the coincidental nature of these things. When Bill was in office, you may recall that every time he got into a sling, something got blown up one way or other.

 

[88GT]

Yea Tom Woods is ignorant, stupid and naive.

Do you have anything other than ad hominems or did you just see the title and completely dismiss what he has to say?

Did you see what the other guy wrote? It was pretty inflammatory.

Yep, just saw the title and decided anybody who thought that was satisfactory title to represent him comments isn't worthy my time. No purple. I've heard it before, and I can't imagine there's any new twist to the old argument that would make me change my mind.

I'm sorry if my opinion inflames you. There's little difference between the lefty utopian ideal of perfect socialism and the libertarian utopian ideal of "every man is a island until he needs the government to protect his rights." Discussing the theoretical is one thing. Expounding the virtues of one's position because one actually believes it can come to pass in contradiction to thousands of years of human history does not inspire confidence in the source.

As I said before, if the comment is meant literally, it's coming from a position of ignorance, stupidity, or naivete. There really isn't any other way around it.