"History and precedent aside, the decision in Miranda, if read as an explication of what the Constitution requires, is preposterous.

There is a world of difference ... between compelling a suspect to incriminate himself and preventing him from foolishly doing so of his own accord.

Preventing foolish (rather than compelled) confessions is likewise the only conceivable basis for the rules (suggested in Miranda...) that courts must exclude any confession elicited by questioning conducted, without interruption, after the suspect has indicated a desire to stand on his right to remain silent. ...The Constitution is not, unlike the Miranda majority, offended by a criminal's commendable qualm of conscience or fortunate fit of stupidity.

Finally, I am not convinced ... that Miranda should be preserved because the decision occupies a special place in the "public's consciousness." As far as I am aware, the public is not under the illusion that we are infallible...."

Reflect on what you believe the judge is saying in this dissenting opinion.

1. In the 34 years following the Miranda decision, the Court was asked to decide 60 cases involving the rules it established. Why does this dissenting justice object to the rules established in Miranda v. Arizona? Make sure to be specific and detailed in your answer.

2. Do you think holdings should be preserved because they are firmly in the "public's consciousness"? Why or why not? Make sure to include what you believe it means for a holding (likeMiranda) to be a part of the "public consciousness.

PLEASE HELP ME ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, PLEASE PUT QUESTION NUMBER AND ANSWER UNDERNEATH FOR A BETTER UNSTANDING (TOP PART IS THE READING)