RightinNYC

1) Precedent can only be overturned by a judge of a higher court or by a rehearing of the same court. Since all 4 of those things have been addressed by SCOTUS, only they can change them, and it sure doesn't look like they plan on doing so ever.

2) Yes, they're "only precedent," but so is literally every single interpretation of what the Constitution says.

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Voidwar

What you have said here requires prognostication or clairvoyance.

Precedent is not nearly as firm of a legal foundation as specific mention in the Bill of Rights. Precedents are VASTLY easier to overturn than Constitutional amendments, and that is an inescapable fact.

The constitution is written plainly, in english, and I look with great skepticism on the term "interpret", and anyone who resorts to it.

Iriemon

Again, Voidwar, if you feel the voire dire system of questioning juror about their bias and removing those who show bias is not consistent with the 6th Amendment commandment of an impartial jury, what system would you propose to ensure the jury is in fact impartial?

__________________
Matthew 5:9

RightinNYC

In the case of things like voir dire or Miranda Rights, that's like saying that driving at 250 mph is safer than driving at 260 mph. Yea, its safer, but is for all relevant intents and purposes, is there any practical difference?

Pretty much every jurist ever to exist disagrees with you on this one, including Thomas and Scalia.

Voidwar

I would like to amend this statement a bit even though the 25 minutes have gone by. It felt personal when I would like to avoid that tone . . .

I would revise my remarks to read :

Voidwar

How is Voir dire, NOT being partial ?

The act of eliminating a juror is a "partial" act.

Were they impartial ? No, they eliminated some but not others.

Voidwar

I do not find this analogy accurate at all.

One case going to scotus can alter or reverse a precedent.

A constitutional congress followed by ratification by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states is a VASTLY higher hurdle.

CaptainCourtesy

We've had this argument before, and I'm not counting my chickens that we will come to any different conclusion than we did, before. The Constitution is written vaguely and generally in order to allow for interpretation. Not every future situation could be planned for; therefore, interpretation is an invaluable legal tool in applying modern situations to the Constitution.

As far as your 6th Amendment argument, we really need to start here: define imparital.

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D

Voidwar

I absolutely disagree.
The document is not vague, and "interpretation" is just an attempt to edit and revise without the authority to do so.

Iriemon

It doesn matter if the process is partial (it is refereed by an impartial judge), what matters is whether the jury that hears the case is impartial.

For the third time:

Again, Voidwar, if you feel the voire dire system of questioning juror about their bias and removing those who show bias is not consistent with the 6th Amendment commandment of an impartial jury, what system would you propose to ensure the jury is in fact impartial?

If you cannot suggest some system to accomplish the 6th amendment's requirement, all your machinations are just spinning wheels.