 |
Current mood:thoughtful
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 offence 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. The explanation given on the website is as follows: "Indictment by a grand jury requires the decision of ordinary citizens to place one in danger of conviction. Double jeopardy means that when one has been convicted or acquitted, the government cannot place that person on trial again. The self-incrimination clause means that the prosecution must establish guilt by independent evidence and not by extorting a confession from the suspect, although voluntary confessions are not precluded. Due process of the law requires the government to observe proper and traditional methods in depriving one of an important right. Finally, when the government seizes property to use in the public interest, it must pay the owner fair value."
What I think this amendment means is:
1. Ordinary citizens decide if a person should go before a grand jury on charges.
2. Once a person has either been convicted or aquitted of charges, they cannot be tried for those charges again. (I'm reminded of the movie where that chick was tired and convicted of killing her husband. When she got released from jail, she found out her husband was still alive and framed her for his fake death-so then she really kills him. HA!)
3. I thought the websites explanation here was dead nuts: "The self-incrimination clause means that the prosecution must establish guilt by independent evidence and not by extorting a confession from the suspect, although voluntary confessions are not precluded." I think we should look into exactly what constitutes and "Extorting a confession" because I cannot believe that every confession comes from the willing.
4. Government can not seize a persons "life, liberty, or property" with out due process of law.
5. If the Government seizes proprty from the convicted to use as public use, they must justly compensate the person.
Sound about right to everyone?
Now, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Obama Administration violate THIS VERY AMENDMENT when they took over GM? Were the share holders justly compensated? They don't believe so.
Here is an article in the Wall Street Journal related to the distribution of GM-please note that Obama now ownes 60%-all be it "reluctantly". [insert eye roll here]
Anyone else have thoughts on this amendment? I welcome your comments.
8:48 PM
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|