Congress, you have the right-- to remain silent (Part II)

Chief Justice Rehnquist, the author of the Dickerson decision, then took on Congress directly. He stated that 18 USC 3501 was intended to overrule Miranda. This brings Miranda and 18 USC 3501 into direct conflict, both cannot survive the day. He stated "this case therefore turns on whether the Miranda Court announced a constitutional rule or merely exercised its supervisory authority to regulate evidence in the absence of congressional direction."

The power to interpret and apply the Constitution rests with the Court and Congress cannot legislatively supersede those decisions. In holding that Miranda is a constitutional decision, Rehnquist conceded that the Court was not entirely clear on this point in the past. For example, in Davis v. United States and Withrow v. Williams the Court specifically stated "Miranda's safeguards are not Constitutional in character." Other decisions stated Miranda was a constitutional decision. One factor carried the day -- States' rights.

"First and foremost of the factors...that Miranda is a constitutional decision is that both Miranda and two of its companion cases applied the rule to proceedings in state courts, to wit, Arizona and California. Since that time we have consistently applied Miranda's rule to prosecutions arising in state courts. It is beyond dispute that we do not hold a supervisory power over the courts of the several States. With respect to proceedings in state courts our authority is limited to enforcing the commands of the United States Constitution."

Because Miranda was a decision by the Court interpreting and applying the Constitution, Congress' had no authority to overrule Miranda. The Court declined to overrule Miranda in its own right, stating that stare decisis, the precedent of Miranda, precluded such action. Further, Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture. Finally, the Court pointed to the rarity in which a defendant can make a colorable argument that a self-incriminating statement was compelled despite the police adherence to Miranda.

Given the ease of the warnings and the minor negative impact, Miranda Warnings remain the law of the land. Congress' 18 USC 3501 totality of the circumstances test is more difficult for police officers' to conform to and for courts to apply. For this reason and the fact that the Court has now declared Miranda a constitutional decision, you, Congress, have the right to remain silent...

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic