And the question here is not, as Ed asserts, whether the police are required to provide a lawyer to a criminal defendant once the defendant has requested one. Nobody denies that. Rather, the question is: May the defendant subsequently waive his right to counsel?

I read the argument and it makes sense to me. I’m old enough to remember how pissed conservatives were when the courts started layering on all these extra procedural “rights” to supplement the Constitution. The fact is repealing Jackson doesn’t mean the Gestapo will coerce you into kicking out your lawyer and then beat a confession out of you.

Let’s get real people. This is actually a good thing. Even if the DOJ gets their way on this the citizen can ask for a lawyer any time they want and get one. This simply grants a citizen the right to waive counsel if and when they wish.

Simpler laws are better laws. I give Obama’s DOJ a star on this one. Ed would be more consistent as a conservative by acknowledging the administration ignored the ACLU in seeking to streamline the legal process and reduce unnecessary expenses.

Now you may want to argue — as the ACLU does — that once a defendant has counsel, he may not shed it, whether he likes it or not. (This was the holding in Michigan v. Jackson.) But let’s not misrepresent the views of the Obama Administration or of the several states.

paul006 on April 25, 2009 at 12:29 PM

It’s sort of amazing how many people fail to understand the simple point you and Proud Rino are making, and keep batting away at strawmen.

Unlike Ed, you both appear to have bothered to read the actual brief. Heck, even Patterico gets it right.

I do give Ed credit for qualifying the heading with a Cavuto mark, though.

Obama has been systematically destroying every economic and political structure in our nation, in order to replace them with his own, more authoritarian, structures.

Funny, I usually feel good when I’m proven right…

Apologies to Glenn Reynolds, but they said if I voted for a Republican in 2008, I’d wind up with an autocratic administration determined to wipe out civil rights — and they were right!  The Obama administration has argued for the end o…

Uncle, the Constitution in and of itself of course cannot say that, as it was written 100 years before the phone. The beauty of the Constitution is not that it is ‘living and breathing’ (meaning whatever people say it means at the moment) but that basic rights are inherent, and judicial rulings can adapt those rights as technology evolves. Rino is being kind of contrary, but he (I assume) has the point. Back in the day when LGF was worth a crap, there was a guy there similar to PR. Only he was right more often. He aggrivated people a lot with his style, but he did make good points often.

bikermailman on April 25, 2009 at 6:25 PM

What did he mean by “use the phone”? I interpret that as “contact a lawyer”, which is the first step to obtaining a competent defense. You are welcome to go on about how phones and the Internet and all that weren’t around when the Constitution was framed, but you are nattering much about nothing. Our interpretation of the Constitution has expanded to cover those advances — to the point where the telephone is covered by expectations of privacy and security in our effects and the Internet by the press freedoms.

It’s a busy weekend here at Public Secrets Secret HQ(tm), but I thought I’d point out a few links worth following: Gird Your Loins Watch: Is Pakistan in danger of collapse? Proving once again that appeasement is futile when the……

Where in the Constitution does it say you’re not allowed to murder anybody?

Proud Rino on April 25, 2009 at 12:06 PM

My guess would be the preamble….establish justice…insure domestic tranquility…provide for the common welfare. I’m pretty sure these would exclude a right to murder, but I’m just a truck driver…I could be wrong.

Historically, I think that only applies if you are a Regime supporter and gay…

So its no leap to realize most teens and twenty-somethings will think this and all other moves made by our ex-Presidency, now Regime, a good thing.

I know you all just can’t wait for the soon to come, breaking story, hotly debated, wherein the Regime makes itself permanent… to the cheers and accolades of youth.

Simple reasoning here. When they start rounding up uppity conservatives the numbers will be so vast that having to provide legal representation will be unsupportable.

FireBlogger on April 25, 2009 at 12:53 PM

I seem to recall that Bill Ayers said that something like 25 million would have to be snuffed.

I am weeping with laughter. Doesn’t say anything about a phone call in there. I think every state has statutes that provide for communication to make reasonable arrangements after your arrest, but it’s hardly a constitutional rule that you have to have a phone call.

Proud Rino on April 25, 2009 at 4:03 PM

Well aren’t you the wordsmith. Are you some two bit lawyer?
Just how does one get a hold of an attorney? Smoke signals, two cans and a string, or maybe morse code.

Obama to end representation in interrogations?
Apologies to Glenn Reynolds,
but they said if I voted for a Republican in 2008, I’d wind up with an
autocratic administration determined to wipe out civil rights — and they were right! The……