Not so fast Mr Constitutional Law Professor, make that senior lecture, ergo, that’s lawyer speak for teaching assistant. Could it be that the you, an alleged usurper, has forgotten if you ever knew it, that under the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is the most basic tenant in our system of justice. Yes, it’s not codified in the Constitution per se but goes back to English Common Law.
So this may be a stretch Mr. President, but once again you are trying to desecrate the Constitution. When you find a person guilty then you take their DNA. You are not above the law Mr. President, you will be eventually be confronted with your failure of your sworn oath to Protect the Constitution of the United States from all enemy’s foreign and domestic.
Shouldn’t your number one focus be on jobs, the deficit, and gutting useless government spending. That’s right you are not a fan of recent political economic models, put into place that straightened thing relative quickly ended anxiety, stress, home foreclosures, unemployment It is doubtful your ill-conceived plan. The never have, just raise taxes, and increase the deficit.
One day Mr. President it may be you who is required to give the DNA. In this case, it makes no difference, the majority of Americans already know you are guilty. Random thoughts while observing the ‘Chosen One’ blind to the terribly obvious, J.C.
Many people believe the people with whom you surround yourself meet the latter definition. Random thoughts
First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you’re guilty, no matter what. So you’re not innocent unless you’re truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.
The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury. US Constitution on line:
Gerstein posts a televised interview of Obama and John Walsh of America’s Most Wanted. The nation’s chief executive extols the virtues of mandatory DNA testing of Americans upon arrest, even absent charges or a conviction. Obama said, “It’s the right thing to do” to “tighten the grip around folks” who commit crime.
When it comes to civil liberties, the Obama administration has come under fire for often mirroring his predecessor’s practices surrounding state secrets, the Patriot Act and domestic spying. There’s also Gitmo, Jay Bybee and John Yoo.
Now there’s DNA sampling. Obama told Walsh he supported the federal government, as well as the 18 states that have varying laws requiring compulsory DNA sampling of individuals upon an arrest for crimes ranging from misdemeanors to felonies. The data is lodged in state and federal databases, and has fostered as many as 200 arrests nationwide, Walsh said.
The American Civil Liberties Union claims DNA sampling is different from mandatory, upon-arrest fingerprinting that has been standard practice in the United States for decades.
A fingerprint, the group says, reveals nothing more than a person’s identity. But much can be learned from a DNA sample, which codes a person’s family ties, some health risks, and, according to some, can predict a propensity for violence.
The ACLU is suing California to block its voter-approved measure requiring saliva sampling of people picked up on felony charges. Authorities in the Golden State are allowed to conduct so-called “familial searching” — when a genetic sample does not directly match another, authorities start investigating people with closely matched DNA in hopes of finding leads to the perpetrator.
Do you wonder whether DNA sampling is legal?
The courts have already upheld DNA sampling of convicted felons, based on the theory that the convicted have fewer privacy rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that when conducting intrusions of the body during an investigation, the police need so-called “exigent circumstances” or a warrant. That alcohol evaporates in the blood stream is the exigent circumstance to draw blood from a suspected drunk driver without a warrant.