issues2000.org

Home Issues Candidates Recent Grid Archive Senate VoteMatch_Quiz The_Forum News
 Notebooks:   |   Bill   Sponsorships   Policy   Reports   Memberships/   Affiliations   Group   Ratings   Court   Rulings 
Bill Sponsorships
Policy Reports
Memberships / Affiliations
Group Ratings
Court Rulings


Bill Sponsorships by Presidential Contenders:
Rep. Bob Barr (L)
Sen. Joe Biden (D, VP)
Sen. John McCain (R)
Rep. Cynthia McKinney (G)
Sen. Barack Obama (D)
Gov. Sarah Palin (R, VP)
Primary contenders:
Sen. Mike Gravel
Sen. Hillary Clinton
Rep. Ron Paul
Gov. Mark Sanford


Candidate Grids
John McCain
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Mike Huckabee
Ron Paul

Book Reviews

(from Amazon.com)

(click a book cover for a review or other books by or about Gore from Amazon.com)

Site Map
Home
(Main page)
Issues
(Quotations organized by topic)
Leaders
(Quotations organized by politician)
Recent
(Most recent quotation for each person)
Candidate Grid
(Summary by candidate of positions on each topic)
  

    This page contains Supreme Court rulings -- with summaries of the majority and minority conclusions.

99-5525 on Apr 19, 2000

Mr. Dickerson, under indictment for bank robbery and related federal crimes, moved to suppress a statement he had made to the FBI, on the ground he had not received “Miranda warnings” before being interrogated. The Government appealed [on the grounds that] his statement was voluntary [as allowed by a Congressional law]. That court concluded that Miranda was not a constitutional holding, and that, therefore, Congress could by statute have the final say on the admissibility question.

Held:

(Rehnquist, joined by Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer)
In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), we held that certain warnings must be given before a suspect’s statement could be admitted in evidence. Congress then enacted a rule that the admissibility of such statements should turn only on whether or not they were voluntarily made. We hold that Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress, and we decline to overrule Miranda ourselves.

Dissent:

(Scalia, joined by Thomas)
Today’s decision is not a reaffirmation of Miranda, but a radical revision of the most significant element of Miranda. Marbury v. Madison (1803), held that an Act of Congress will not be enforced by the courts if what it prescribes violates the Constitution. That was the basis on which Miranda was decided. One will search today’s opinion in vain, however, for a statement (surely simple enough to make) that [the law in this case] violates the Constitution. [Instead, the Court is adopting] a significant new principle of constitutional law, in which statutes of Congress can be disregarded, not only when what they prescribe violates the Constitution, but when what they prescribe contradicts a decision of this Court that “announced a constitutional rule.” I dissent.


    Participating counts on VoteMatch question 9.
  • Topic: Civil Rights
  • Headline: Uphold "Miranda", informing people being arrested of rights (Score: -1)
  • Headline 2: Miranda rights can be overruled by Congress (Score: 2)
  • Key for participation codes:
  • Sponsorships: p=sponsored; o=co-sponsored; s=signed
  • Memberships: c=chair; m=member; e=endorsed; f=profiled; s=scored
  • Resolutions: i=introduced; w=wrote; a=adopted
  • Cases: w=wrote; j=joined; d=dissented; c=concurred



Democrats participating in 99-5525



Republicans participating in 99-5525



Independents participating in 99-5525

Stephen Breyer j1US Supreme Court
Ruth Bader Ginsburg j1US Supreme Court
Anthony Kennedy j1US Supreme Court
Sandra Day O'Connor j1US Supreme Court
William Rehnquist w1US Supreme Court
Antonin Scalia w2dUS Supreme Court
David Souter j1US Supreme Court
John Paul Stevens j1US Supreme Court
Clarence Thomas j2dUS Supreme Court



Total recorded by OnTheIssues:

Democrats: 0
Republicans: 0
Independents: 9

Reproduction of material from any OnTheIssues.org pages without written permission is prohibited.
Copyright © 1999-2008 OnTheIssues.org & the SpeakOut Foundation, all rights reserved.
OnTheIssues.org 1770 Massachusetts Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
E-mail us at:info at OnTheIssues.org
| Advertising information | Privacy and Use Policies