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.
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.