Respectfully, as I stated before people come to these conclusions because they do not understand how the law works.
As an example - The bill of rights originally only applied to people that dealt with the Federal system. It did not apply to state citizens. Its took the 14th amendment to apply the bill of rights to the states. Secondly, each state has their own constitution, which people don't seem to understand. The laws applied are applied at the state local level, not federal.
Its one of the main reasons federal courts, when dealing with state laws that require identification to vote in elections, have ruled them unconstitutional in application to federal elections. 2 States have laws that require identification to vote in state / local elections.
Why? The term is called separate sovereigns.
Do all constitutional amendments apply to the states? Nope -
The 7th amendment has never been applied to the states.
Is providing pedigree information to officers a constitutional violation - nope.
Can a person kill another person, be investigated, arrested, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to death without ever being read their Miranda rights? - Yup
Miranda only applies when a person is in custody and being asked guilt seeking questions. An Officer requesting a drivers license (when a motor vehicle is involved) is not a violation of any amendments or any laws - its pedigree information. Asking a person if they have had any alcohol to drink on a traffic stop is also not a violation of the Constitution.
When a person is in a position to invoke their 5th amendment, and they do (either by stating or refusing to answer questions) its absolute. Which means a person does not get to tell their side of the story and then refuse to answer questions. They either clam up completely, or they talk. They don't get to pick and choose what they will answer and what they will not.
The 1st amendment is not a 100% absolute. This was established by the US Supreme Court and the ruling dealt with speech that can adversely affect others (yelling fire in a movie theatre is the most common example). However, a traffic stop is a technical seizure under the 4th amendment, and because of that the officer in question is responsible for everyone at that scene as well as passerby's.
That means the person(s) actions can be restricted, including speech if that speech constitutes a threat or public safety issue. Its along the same lines of 3rd parties recording police actions verses a person who is the focus of the police contact trying to record.
One can be stopped, the person in contact, while the 3rd party is generally free to do what they are doing (again exceptions apply when the actions of the 3rd party interfere with the officers actions / persons rights on scene / public safety (people who like to record on highways etc).
While I understand your argument and position, people must learn how their government works, at all levels. Its not enough to state an amendment does this or that.
Is our constitution absolute and perfect? - Absolutely Not.
We had to make changes to allow all persons to vote.
Then we made changes to allow women to vote.
We made changes that outlawed alcohol.
We made changes that legalized alcohol.
The Constitution must evolve with the times, specifically for some of the reasons you listed. No where in the Constitution does it talk about electronic mediums. The Supreme Court is just now getting cases involving electronics, and they are integrating that technology into the laws.
Just as they had to do with motor vehicles and searches...
Just as they have had to do with guns...
Just as they have had to with private security / citizens arrest / etc etc etc.
If the system is as bad as people claim, then why are dash cams / body cams / mics being required in certain states? Why did the courts rule that a DWI field sobriety test that is recorded must be submitted as evidence? Why did the Supreme Court rule against law enforcement for a vehicle search incident to arrest (AZ vs. Gant). Why did the Supreme Court rule that, for certain crimes, interviews must be conducted in an area with audio / video recording?
The Supreme Court Ruling re: California and searches of residents. That ruling did not throw the 4th out the _ Prior to the ruling, in California, if 2 people living in a residence, and one person objects to a consent search, the search required a warrant. The change recently made states that if 2 people are at a house, and one person is arrested, and the other person gives consent to search, even if the arrested person objects, the search is voluntary and does not require a warrant.
If people are not going to take the time to learn how it works, then they are always, always, going to be complaining about a broken system. Just because you think something does not work, does not mean its broken. Sometimes, what is required is for the person to educate themselves on how something works. In legal areas, those people who do are called lawyers, judges, mediators etc etc.
If you think its broke, then do something to fix it. Get involved in government, at all levels. Vote... Hold your reps accountable and vote them out if they don't do their jobs.
The best advice I can give is for people to learn about the very system they hate / despise / have issues with. Just because you learn about it, does not mean you have to like it / agree with it. However, that knowledge can allow for you to make changes. Being able to articulate the problem using the same book they use, gives a leg up in the argument, resulting in a better chance of effecting the change you desire.
simply name calling / blanket comments do not do anything to resolve the issues.
People like to claim Law Enforcement will not talk to them / listen to them... I have tried to do that on this site, and for my troubles I get accused of being a part of the problem, I get called a Nazi, redcoat etc etc etc. Ironic that the people who demand communication are some of the first to ignore it and shout it down.
