OK, deal, let’s follow just the Constitution. First, we get rid of Miranda warnings, since there is no provision of the Constitution requiring police to act as advisers of accused’s rights.

Then, we get rid of the exclusionary rule in search and seizure cases. There is, after all, no provision in the Constitution stating that evidence seized in violation of the 4th Am. cannot be used at trial.

Then, we get rid of court-appointed counsel, since nothing in the Constitution says an accused has the right to have a lawyer provided to him (it only says he has a right to counsel, not that counsel must be provided at no cost by the state).

I could go on… point is, “the Constitution” is not necessarily the defendant friendly document you assume it is. Only by dint of accretions to the document by creative judges do the “rights” I’ve referenced exist.

So if and when these same judges begin to pare back crim procedure to bring it in line with the actual wording of the constitution, one can hardly complain that the “Constitution” is being eroded. No, the accrued, extra-textual interpretations of the Constitution are being revised.

If a police officer walks up to someone and says, “Do you know what happened?” and that person falsely confesses, does that mean no police officer should ever ask anyone that question?

The morality (legality) of an action isn’t determined solely, or even primarily, by its outcome. Is whoever planted a tree near the Garden State Parkway responsible for the ensuing death?

“All absolute statements are wrong” is an example of Epimenides Paradox (look it up).

And the reason I cannot tell which of you missed the irony is that the person who stated the Paradox simply pointed out that the comment to which he responded was incomplete and then vomited up the Paradox as if that explained why the comment to which he responded was incomplete. (And he was wrong.)

You’re welcome.