Great question. In theory/practice you can just shut up from square one. But asserting your rights by doing so in clear unambiguous terms for is advisable. Judges understand someone saying “I wish to invoke my right against self incrimination as protected in the 5th amendment” better than the do pure silence.

7th amendment applies to civil suits. Judges may when common law doesn’t govern. But that’s limited. And criminal defendants must consent to bench trial by not contesting any of the facts.

Movies are works of fiction not law. In America if you choose to temporarily waive your right to silence and speak to police you may at any point reassert that right.

I couldn’t blame cinematographers for attempting to tell a story. But they are artists not lawyers.

You may talk to police that way in America but any good lawyer will tell you not to because the strength of the fact that your silence can’t be used against you often will offend out weigh any defense you might argue.

When guilt must be proven absence of evidence is the defendant’s friend.

As an American this is an interesting comment.

Traditional American understandings agree with the notion of innocent until proven guilty and that rights exist regardless of accusations. But here it is not a judge but a jury of your peers who decides the facts based on evidence shown to them. Here judges decide matters of law not fact.

(Unless you choose to have a judge rule on the facts (likely because you are probably unpopular in your community because of the nature of the accusations and you feel it’d be more fair for a judge to decide the fact in your eyes))…

I’m not sure what an exception could look like that wouldn’t swallow the rule. Maybe a requirement for a minimum of a certain sq footage of undeveloped land. But that might not work in areas where many lots have a small amount of habitat land that together forms a larger habitat.

I think it might have merit on a municipal level in very urban areas but not on a state or national basis because of this.

wild misinformation ads would be OK too…

Yes. Because the government is not the supreme arbiter of truth. If someone wants to put out an advert saying the sky is yellow they can. Our society functions on the principle that an open market of ideas will result in the best ideas prospering while a closed market of ideas would stifle new better ideas.

This might not be the reason but in the US a lot of land is privately owned undeveloped land. If you taxed undeveloped land you may incentivize the destruction of habitats of a lot of wildlife.

If the food pantries in your area are well stocked like they are in much of the US it’s probably to ensure that homeless people are getting free non-expired food rather than free expired food.

No need 1A speaks to that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

No need. America is a nation who’s founder where largely of one religion but they ensured that no one religion should assert itself over others.

And what crime passed by the federal legislature did they commit that wasn’t in violation of the constitution (including BoR) in your opinion? Last I checked 1A is still there.

I’d say pretty good. How often do you see the federal government passing a law that violates the rights of the American people? And when it does how often can you say that there isn’t a constitutional violation in that law?

Additionally you say that like we don’t enjoy many rights that our global peers don’t. Like the right to a trial by jury in civil matters, to confront your accusor in a criminal trial, the many strict protections we have on searches, or the protections on political speech.

So many of the rights that document protect people take as granted. Most every violation of one of those rights can be declared to be because we have yet to enumerate that right or we haven’t followed the rules the constitution imposed on our government.

Having faith in politicians and liking a document designed to ensure the preservation of human rights & liberties are two different things.

“the US” doesn’t narrow it down much. I kinda assumed that much. What really matters if which one of the 50+ legal systems in the US he is subject to. And which courthouse he is going to.

This is going to 100% be a state law matter, unless he lives somewhere like D.C. or Puerto Rico which aren’t states but fall under federal jurisdiction.

We have no clue where you are so we can’t give any good advice. For all we know you live in Elbonia and driving without a license gets you the guillotine.

But

Show up ~30 minutes early, there will likely be metal detectors and a line at them. If you are in line be ready when you get up front, if you need to empty your pockets do that before you are at the detector. This makes it faster for everyone.

Showing up early will also give you time to find your courtroom in the building. It also will let you watch the court for a few minutes before your time to shine.

Turn your phone off. Court house rules might require you leave it outside.

Dress appropriately, a polo should be fine. Any collared shirt tucked in with pants and closed toed shoes will show you put some effort into dressing yourself. No hats unless you’ve got to for your religion.

It’s the judge’s courtroom don’t interrupt them. Don’t lie. And being on your best behavior starts the moment you step onto the lot not when you enter the room, be polite to court staff as well.

Read the ticket front and back for specific instructions. Check the court website to see if there’s any announcements that you should be aware of (like local rules).

Don’t listen to other people’s advice on how you should plead. We don’t know the facts of your case. Most people here aren’t lawyers. Nothing here is legal advice.

Eugenics and prohibition were both progressive social movements.

Progressive doesn’t necessarily mean good.

Exactly. People forget this about our appellate courts too often. For every can they hear there will be much more lower trial courts hear and will try and relate to the higher court’s case. An appellate court trying to solve every case in front of them in the most fair way ensures more cases will end unfairly.

Tim, dude, seriously. Actively arguing that it is appropriate to preferential treatment or negative treatment towards people on the basis of race. While claiming a law that shows no favors to anyone on the basis of race is like the words of hate groups.

There’s a broad distinction between letting people express themselves in their own free time and supporting systemic race based discrimination. Nobody is stopping straight people from going out and expressing themselves.

You are clearly the one with the bad faith stance. Seriously stop once, and in a moment of humility consider if it is you who might be wrong.

I would recommend you read his concurrence before you make comments as to the nature of his argument. I get it’s a lengthy one at 58 pages but as you seem to suggest in your comment strawmanning people in not a good practice.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

But if that’s too long I’ll try and summarize with a few lines from it.

“The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.”

“enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law.”

““[o]ur Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting).”

And here’s the reading of a portion:

https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts13/opinion_announcement_audio/25581

Just as it is wrong for white people to benefit from preferential treatment over black people who were detrimented (such as under slavery or Jim Crow). It is wrong for black people to benefit from preferential treatment over asian people who were detrimented (such as under Japanese interment or the Chinese exclusion act).

I’ve watched a few of his videos and they’ve all been very interesting. I’d recommend some of his coverage on Native American/Indian issues.

He also did good job showing the border situation from the lenses of people from every side of it (migrants, cartel coyotes, local sheriffs, & cities hosting the migrants). It highlights how dogmatism of politicians is hurting ordinary people.

CA banned race base admission in the '90s in favor of a system that guaranteed admissions to top percentile students.

Post Students for Fair Admissions, schools can’t use race alone as a plus or minus nation wide. Like California has been doing it for the past 3 decades.

Universities’ recent experiences confirm the efficacy of a colorblind rule. To start, universities prohibited from engaging in racial discrimination by state law continue to enroll racially diverse classes by race-neutral means. For example, the University of California purportedly recently admitted its “most diverse undergraduate class ever,” despite California’s ban on racial preferences.

(THOMAS, J., concurring) (arguing universities can consider “[r]ace-neutral policies” similar to those adopted in States such as California and Michigan, and that universities can consider “status as a first-generation college applicant,” “financial means,” and “generational inheritance or otherwise”)

Thomas goes on and calls out the issue legacy admissions in his lengthy concurrence.

Worse, the classifications that JUSTICE JACKSON draws are themselves race-based stereotypes. She focuses on two hypothetical applicants, John and James, competing for admission to UNC. John is a white, seventh-generation legacy at the school, while James is black and would be the first in his family to attend UNC. Post, at 3. JUSTICE JACKSON argues that race-conscious admission programs are necessary to adequately compare the two applicants. As an initial matter, it is not clear why James’s race is the only factor that could encourage UNC to admit him; his status as a first-generation college applicant seems to contextualize his application. But, setting that aside, why is it that John should be judged based on the actions of his great-great-great-grandparents?