"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
How many times have you heard, "I plead the fifth," spoken by someone . . . anyone? Do you think they really knew what it meant? Did you really know what it meant? Well, now you might learn a little something. There's more than the "self incriminating" piece.
The first portion discusses capital and "otherwise infamous" crimes which is simply a reference to infractions which are known as felonies. The Grand Jury decides if there is enough evidence to try a person for the alleged crime. If found that there is, then the person will be put on trial for the offense. The exception to this rule ( isn't there always one? ) is the military forces. Service Members are held accountable by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). They can also be processed by the civilian law as well . . . more on that later.
The next part of this amendment is known as the "Double Jeopardy" clause. If you are found innocent of a crime, you may not be tried again for the same crime. As I mentioned previously, Service Members are not always protected as such.
Then comes the most well-known portion. During any part of judicial process, you do not have to make any statements which could prove you guilty. Some take this so far as to say to not answer any questions from the police during the investigation. You never know how a minor misstatement on your part could lead to a conviction.
Next we have the wonderful phrase of "due process" which has remained quite well undefined. Thankfully we have other amendments to help define this. For example: jury of peers, burden of proof, etc.
Finally, we come to a part which many people love. (Please read the sarcasm I intend there.) The taking of private property has been a matter of much debate. When the government decides to expand a highway and your property is involved, the government is to pay you for your loss. Of course, what the government thinks is a fair price might not be what that individual feels is a fair price. Plus, it's not the governments land. And what's to stop them from taking more and more?
I hope this have given you a little insight on the fifth amendment. As with all of these blurbs, it is not an all encompassing essay, but hopefully something to stir your brain into doing some thinking and some further research.
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
The Fourth Amedment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
A very important amendment usually referenced when discussing privacy. While the government may collect information about the citizens which is necessary for it to function and protect the union, it may not obtain any of it via illegal methods. In order to gather additional information and evidence, they must have a reason and obtain a warrant.
Quite recently, there was a big hubbub concerning "wire tapping" procedures used for counter-terrorism. The government was simply data mining. They used the phone records of suspects already being investigated to find commonalities. Once that was determined, a warrant was obtained to perform the actual wire tapping for further investigation.
As long as we citizens do not turn over too much power to our government, this will not be much of a concern of mine. The increase in social programs (i.e. health care, corporate bailouts, public schools, etc.) is how we are losing our power as citizens. Too many citizens vote without knowledge and do not use their voice to keep government in check. Protect your privacy: become an informed and active participant in your government.
A very important amendment usually referenced when discussing privacy. While the government may collect information about the citizens which is necessary for it to function and protect the union, it may not obtain any of it via illegal methods. In order to gather additional information and evidence, they must have a reason and obtain a warrant.
Quite recently, there was a big hubbub concerning "wire tapping" procedures used for counter-terrorism. The government was simply data mining. They used the phone records of suspects already being investigated to find commonalities. Once that was determined, a warrant was obtained to perform the actual wire tapping for further investigation.
As long as we citizens do not turn over too much power to our government, this will not be much of a concern of mine. The increase in social programs (i.e. health care, corporate bailouts, public schools, etc.) is how we are losing our power as citizens. Too many citizens vote without knowledge and do not use their voice to keep government in check. Protect your privacy: become an informed and active participant in your government.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
The Third Amendment
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
This is the least cited amendment. It is clear and concise. A situation in which one would use this as the basis of a legal suit is very unlikely to occur. In fact, the most recent case of which I am aware is from 1982.
A group of prison guards went on strike in New York. Some of these guards rented housing from the prison, in a building about a half mile from the prison. When the guards struck, the National Guard was activated by the Governor to take over for the guards. The quarters rented by the guards were used to house the soldiers. A pair of the prison guards sued the Governor and several other officials on the basis that the 3rd Amendment had been violated. In state court, the claim was summarily dismissed. After appeal, the ruling was upheld. The guards did not own the apartments. The guards were not required to use the apartments.
With the number of available facilities throughout the United States and the military's ability to quickly erect "tent cities" just about anywhere, the need to utilize civilian homes for service member housing is slim to none.
This is the least cited amendment. It is clear and concise. A situation in which one would use this as the basis of a legal suit is very unlikely to occur. In fact, the most recent case of which I am aware is from 1982.
A group of prison guards went on strike in New York. Some of these guards rented housing from the prison, in a building about a half mile from the prison. When the guards struck, the National Guard was activated by the Governor to take over for the guards. The quarters rented by the guards were used to house the soldiers. A pair of the prison guards sued the Governor and several other officials on the basis that the 3rd Amendment had been violated. In state court, the claim was summarily dismissed. After appeal, the ruling was upheld. The guards did not own the apartments. The guards were not required to use the apartments.
With the number of available facilities throughout the United States and the military's ability to quickly erect "tent cities" just about anywhere, the need to utilize civilian homes for service member housing is slim to none.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The Second Amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Many a debate has been had over this one. Does it pertain to a state militia (now the National Guard) or an individual citizen's right to own and carry firearms? If we were to ask many of our founding fathers, the answer would surely be . . . "Yes."
State militias were necessary for states to protect the borders. Today we have the National Guard which serves that function. In some states, there are still laws on the books requiring "men of age" (varies by state) to own a rifle. I don't personally know anyone who objects to this interpretation of the wording of this amendment.
The right for an individual citizen to own and carry a firearm is the heated part of the discussion. The founding fathers had been ordinary citizens who felt the need to rebel with the goal of creating a better system for their desires and needs. The representative republic (yes, not a democracy) which they had outlined seemed like a great idea. They also knew that the time may come again when the citizens of this new nation would have to rise against another tyrannical and oppressive government.
Most individual state constitutions address the issue directly. For example, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania states: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." (Article 1, Section 21) Pretty clear. Yet, somehow, there are plenty of situations where my right is questioned. My place of employment does not permit me to carry my pistol, not even in my car into the parking lot. Depressing.
Many argue that gun control laws protect people. Do criminals follow the law? No. Otherwise, they would not be criminals. (Sure, none of us are PERFECT law-abiding citizens.) Those of us who are upstanding members of society are limited by these laws -- not the criminals. Yes, we with good morals, who would protect you from these criminals, are limited in our ability to do so by these ridiculous regulations. Think about it.
If a criminal wants a firearm will he acquire it legally, carry it legally, and use it legally? Or will the weapon more likely be obtained illegally, carried illegally, and used illegally?
Perhaps, one day, enough people will realize the importance of owning and carrying weapons to protect ourselves, our families, and even those we do not know to return to common sense on this issue. I fear that someday we may all be forced to use those plastic safety scissors (instead of metal bladed ones) to protect everyone from cuts.
I carry with pride. I hope to never have to use it. But don't think I won't if the situation warrants the use of deadly force.
Many a debate has been had over this one. Does it pertain to a state militia (now the National Guard) or an individual citizen's right to own and carry firearms? If we were to ask many of our founding fathers, the answer would surely be . . . "Yes."
State militias were necessary for states to protect the borders. Today we have the National Guard which serves that function. In some states, there are still laws on the books requiring "men of age" (varies by state) to own a rifle. I don't personally know anyone who objects to this interpretation of the wording of this amendment.
The right for an individual citizen to own and carry a firearm is the heated part of the discussion. The founding fathers had been ordinary citizens who felt the need to rebel with the goal of creating a better system for their desires and needs. The representative republic (yes, not a democracy) which they had outlined seemed like a great idea. They also knew that the time may come again when the citizens of this new nation would have to rise against another tyrannical and oppressive government.
Most individual state constitutions address the issue directly. For example, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania states: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." (Article 1, Section 21) Pretty clear. Yet, somehow, there are plenty of situations where my right is questioned. My place of employment does not permit me to carry my pistol, not even in my car into the parking lot. Depressing.
Many argue that gun control laws protect people. Do criminals follow the law? No. Otherwise, they would not be criminals. (Sure, none of us are PERFECT law-abiding citizens.) Those of us who are upstanding members of society are limited by these laws -- not the criminals. Yes, we with good morals, who would protect you from these criminals, are limited in our ability to do so by these ridiculous regulations. Think about it.
If a criminal wants a firearm will he acquire it legally, carry it legally, and use it legally? Or will the weapon more likely be obtained illegally, carried illegally, and used illegally?
Perhaps, one day, enough people will realize the importance of owning and carrying weapons to protect ourselves, our families, and even those we do not know to return to common sense on this issue. I fear that someday we may all be forced to use those plastic safety scissors (instead of metal bladed ones) to protect everyone from cuts.
I carry with pride. I hope to never have to use it. But don't think I won't if the situation warrants the use of deadly force.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
The First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There are several important issues addressed here: establishment of religion and prohobition of religion; freedom of speech and freedom of the press; peaceable assembly and petitioning the government. I'll take a look at each in turn.
Religion has been a very hot topic throughout history. Various groups have fled their homelands in order to safely and freely practice their beliefs. The framers of the Consitution realized that the creation of a national religion would be detrimental to all of those who had helped to form this new nation.
In modern times, the debate continues. "Separation of chuch and state" is a phrase that is thrown around a lot. This part of the first amendment is the origin. Of course the meaning that phrase has nothing to do with the writing. Displaying religious objects at government buildings does not violate the first amendment in any way.
Another current topic for discussion is the requirement for "feet washing" stations at universities. This mandation, however, is a violation of this amendment. Why are public schools barred from student prayers? See the inconsistancy?
Freedom of speech is always a fun discussion. "Why can't I say '#@$!*'?" That's not the purpose of this liberty. Outside the laws protecting people from slander, we are free to make statements about our government, other people, etc. whether fact or opinion. Which rolls us right into the secons half of this piece.
The press was a very important part in rallying support for the revolution. Many non-sactioned writings were published and distributed which could not be in the mainstream press due to the restrictions put in place by the king. Currently there is a "Fairness in Media" bill being debated. Since the Marxists and Socialist cannot maintain a talk radio presence, they are trying to silence the great shows which have been broadcasting for years.
The right to peaceable assembly has great history of which most people have some knowledge. Ever heard of the Boston Tea party? Since the founders did not have representation in the British government, they found other ways to be "heard." Rallies and marches are a staple to many movements for groups of citizens to voice their opinions to the government.
Have a grievance? An assembly is an option, but there are other channels. Let your representatives know. You have elected them (more on that with the 17th amendment) and they are to listen to your views. That's why they have the title which they have and serve in the legislative branch where they serve.
I hope that this has been a bit insightful. Stay tuned for more. Comments for discussion are welcome.
There are several important issues addressed here: establishment of religion and prohobition of religion; freedom of speech and freedom of the press; peaceable assembly and petitioning the government. I'll take a look at each in turn.
Religion has been a very hot topic throughout history. Various groups have fled their homelands in order to safely and freely practice their beliefs. The framers of the Consitution realized that the creation of a national religion would be detrimental to all of those who had helped to form this new nation.
In modern times, the debate continues. "Separation of chuch and state" is a phrase that is thrown around a lot. This part of the first amendment is the origin. Of course the meaning that phrase has nothing to do with the writing. Displaying religious objects at government buildings does not violate the first amendment in any way.
Another current topic for discussion is the requirement for "feet washing" stations at universities. This mandation, however, is a violation of this amendment. Why are public schools barred from student prayers? See the inconsistancy?
Freedom of speech is always a fun discussion. "Why can't I say '#@$!*'?" That's not the purpose of this liberty. Outside the laws protecting people from slander, we are free to make statements about our government, other people, etc. whether fact or opinion. Which rolls us right into the secons half of this piece.
The press was a very important part in rallying support for the revolution. Many non-sactioned writings were published and distributed which could not be in the mainstream press due to the restrictions put in place by the king. Currently there is a "Fairness in Media" bill being debated. Since the Marxists and Socialist cannot maintain a talk radio presence, they are trying to silence the great shows which have been broadcasting for years.
The right to peaceable assembly has great history of which most people have some knowledge. Ever heard of the Boston Tea party? Since the founders did not have representation in the British government, they found other ways to be "heard." Rallies and marches are a staple to many movements for groups of citizens to voice their opinions to the government.
Have a grievance? An assembly is an option, but there are other channels. Let your representatives know. You have elected them (more on that with the 17th amendment) and they are to listen to your views. That's why they have the title which they have and serve in the legislative branch where they serve.
I hope that this has been a bit insightful. Stay tuned for more. Comments for discussion are welcome.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Looking Back at America
I have decided to create some posts concerning the history of America. Working from the Constitution to the Bill of Rights to some ammendments which are of great interest. Reading good history books and the writings of the framers of our Constitution and other founders has really enlightened me. Sure I've learned a lot during my schooling, but I've learned much more since then through my own research and friends who also desire true understanding of our founding principles. Therefore, I thought this might be a nice way to review it and possibly share it with others. Check out http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html for some nice reading. More to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
