Prophylactic rule
Legal rule which overprotects a constitutional right
A prophylactic rule is a judicially crafted rule that overprotects a constitutional right, and gives more protection than such right might abstractly seem to require on its face, in order to safeguard that constitutional right or improve detection of violations of that right.[1]
In United States law, an example is the case of Miranda v. Arizona, which adopted a prophylactic rule ("Miranda warnings") to protect the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The exclusionary rule, which restricts admissibility of evidence in court, is also sometimes considered to be a prophylactic rule.[2] The notion of prophylactic rules is controversial. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have argued against them, writing that the ability of judges to create these rules "is an immense and frightening antidemocratic power, and it does not exist."[3]
See also
- Implied powers
- Judicial activism
Footnotes
- ^ Caminker, Evan. "Miranda and Some Puzzles of ‘Prophylactc’ Rules," University of Cincinnati Law Review (2001).
- ^ United States v. Herrera, 444 F.3d 1238 Archived 2008-12-01 at the Wayback Machine (10th Cir. 2006).
- ^ Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) (dissenting opinion).
- v
- t
- e
- History
- Articles of Confederation
- Mount Vernon Conference
- Annapolis Convention
- Philadelphia Convention
- The Federalist Papers
- Anti-Federalist Papers
- Massachusetts Compromise
- Virginia Ratifying Convention
- New York Circular Letter
- Hillsborough Convention
- Fayetteville Convention
- Rhode Island ratification
- Drafting and ratification timeline
- Admission to the Union
- Appointments
- Appropriations
- Assistance of Counsel
- Case or Controversy
- Citizenship
- Commerce
- Compact
- Compulsory Process
- Confrontation
- Congressional enforcement
- Contingent Elections
- Contract
- Copyright and Patent
- Double Jeopardy
- Due Process
- Elections
- Engagements
- Equal Protection
- Establishment
- Exceptions
- Excessive Bail
- Ex Post Facto
- Extradition
- Free Exercise
- Free Speech
- Fugitive Slave
- Full Faith and Credit
- General Welfare
- Guarantee
- House Apportionment
- Impeachment
- Import-Export
- Ineligibility
- Militia
- Natural-born citizen
- Necessary and Proper
- No Religious Test
- Oath or Affirmation
- Original Jurisdiction
- Origination
- Pardon
- Petition
- Postal
- Presentment
- Presidential Electors
- Presidential succession
- Privileges and Immunities
- Privileges or Immunities
- Recess appointment
- Recommendation
- Self-Incrimination
- Speech or Debate
- Speedy Trial
- State of the Union
- Supremacy
- Suspension
- Take Care
- Takings
- Taxing and Spending
- Territorial
- Title of Nobility (Foreign Emoluments)
- Treaty
- Trial by Jury
- Vesting (Legislative / Executive / Judicial)
- Vicinage
- War Powers
- Balance of powers
- Concurrent powers
- Constitutional law
- Criminal procedure
- Criminal sentencing
- Dormant Commerce Clause
- Enumerated powers
- Equal footing
- Executive privilege
- Implied powers
- Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
- Judicial review
- Nondelegation doctrine
- Plenary power
- Preemption
- Reserved powers
- Saxbe fix
- Separation of church and state
- Separation of powers
- Symmetric federalism
- Taxation power
- Unitary executive theory
| Convention President | |
|---|---|
| New Hampshire |
|
| Massachusetts | |
| Connecticut | |
| New York | |
| New Jersey |
|
| Pennsylvania |
|
| Delaware |
|
| Maryland | |
| Virginia | |
| North Carolina | |
| South Carolina |
|
| Georgia | |
| Convention Secretary |
|
and legacy
- National Archives
- Independence Mall
- Constitution Day
- Constitution Gardens
- Constitution Week
- National Constitution Center
- Scene at the Signing of the Constitution (painting)
- A More Perfect Union (film)
- Worldwide influence
