Here is my evaluation of the statement in one paragraph:
Though this statement attempts to argue against requiring police officers to inform suspects of their rights to an attorney during interrogation, it is not completely effective in its reasoning. While the statement acknowledges that such rules may be “wise,” it insists they are not “constitutional” in dimension, claiming instead they should be determined through “legislative” and “judicial” means rather than constitutionally. However, the statement provides little concrete evidence or logical reasoning to convincingly support this position. It makes declarations about what the Constitution “cannot” and “should not” require but does not establish why informing suspects of their rights would undermine the Constitution. Overall, the statement relies more on assertion than evidence, weakening its effectiveness.