|
|
| The Purpose of the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights |
 |
|
Tuesday, September 30 2008 @ 09:20 PM EDT
|
I'm thinking that we need a few fun classes on the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. No. Really. If you'll try to pay attention, I'll try to make it enjoyable.
I've written about the First Amendment a few times (here,
here, and here), and frankly some of your comments made me suspect that at least a handful of you snoozed through Civics Class, and others of you are not USians and so the Bill of Rights is just a piece of paper to you. To be totally frank, some USians seem to view it that way nowadays too. So, I thought it would be useful to explain it. Try to think of it as history class about the purpose of the founding fathers, because otherwise we'll get sidetracked on the level of implementation in the news and politics, and that isn't what Groklaw is for. But explaining the law and how the courts work, that *is* what Groklaw is for. Why take the time for this?
The simple -- and utterly serious -- truth is this: you can't understand US law or what federal courts do without comprehending the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights. It's bedrock. Courts are obligated to uphold the Constitution, and the higher you go in the US legal system, the more likely they are to do so. It's what they are for. I'd call it a job description. So as time permits and I come across ways to address this topic, I'll do so. That way, at least you'll understand certain decisions that otherwise mystify and sometimes outrage you. Like... dare I mention that hated word, spammers? So here I go. I hope you'll come along. Yes. You too, my dear knuckleheads. Groklaw's JC Carr sent me a link to this very enjoyable video on the Fifth Amendment, which is how I came up with the idea for this new topic. The Fifth Amendment is the one about the right not to incriminate yourself, among other things. But what I want you to look for is the concept and purpose behind it, what its authors were striving for. It's an enjoyable lecture by Professor James Duane of Virginia University, who has a lovely sense of humor, and Police Officer George Burch of the Virginia Beach Police Department, who I hope never to sit across a table from in a small room, speaking on the Fifth Amendment, a lecture presented at Regents Law School. Duane was a criminal defense attorney when in private practice, and he explains 8 reasons why attorneys always tell their clients not to talk to the police. Burch tells the audience that Duane is right. If you think you'd never need to plead the Fifth, or that it's only for criminals, this video is for you. As you watch, and as the reasons why you should not talk to the police multiply, even if and in fact especially if you are in fact innocent, think about why the authors of the Bill of Rights came up with such a concept. Perhaps it will help you appreciate what the professor calls the genius of the founders of the US legal system, who actually gave thought to protecting the innocent from government power. Some governments set up laws to protect the privileged few from the common man; the founding fathers did exactly the opposite -- the Bill of Rights was particularly designed to protect the little guy from the government, which by definition has more power. They themselves described their purpose in coming to the new world, speaking to the British in 1775 in the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of taking up Arms, a document I first brought to your attention when Darl sent his anti-GPL letter to the US Congress, and here's what they said they came here for: Our forefathers, inhabitants of the island of Great-Britain, left their native land, to seek on these shores a residence for civil and religious freedom. At the expense of their blood, at the hazard of their fortunes, without the least charge to the country from which they removed, by unceasing labor, and an unconquerable spirit, they effected settlements in the distant and inhospitable wilds of America . . . They came here for civic and religious freedom. So when they wrote the Constitution and the Amendments, that's what they wanted to do. That is the point of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, and the video will help you to understand just how much this one amendment, the Fifth, protects you if you are a normal person, *particularly* if you are innocent but also if you are guilty. Not that you ever would be.
Of course, classes can't be only fun. You have to try to pay attention to the studious parts too. Remember how SCO never would pay attention in GPL Summer School? It surely cost them. So, with that warning, here's the Fifth Amendment:
Amendment V
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.
'Lectric Law explains that it can be used in civil actions also, and you saw it happen in the HP spying matter. You have to assert it question by question. You can't just assert it once for all time:
The Fifth Amendment 'can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory; and it protects against any disclosures which the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used.' Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 44-45 ('72). A reasonable belief that information concerning income or assets might be used to establish criminal failure to file a tax return can support a claim of Fifth Amendment privilege. See U.S. v. Rendahl, 746 F.2d 553, 55-56 (9th Cir.'84).
The only way the Fifth Amendment can be asserted as to testimony is on a question-by-question basis. Rendahl, 746 F.2d at 555, citing with approval U.S. v. Bell, 448 F.2d 40, 42 (9th Cir.'71) (Fifth Amendment challenge premature on appeal from enforcement order; appellant must present himself for questioning after enforcement and as to each question elect to raise or not to raise the defense).
The appropriate device for compelling answers to incriminating questions is a government grant of use immunity. See Sharp, 920 F.2d at 1172.
That need to assert the privilege question by question leads to the funny news clips where people tend to look increasingly guilty for repeating over and over that he or she relies upon the protection of the Fifth Amendment. The video explains that totally, and after you watch it, you'll never assume guilt again, just because someone asserts the Fifth Amendment.
Graphic from the National Archives' online collection, where those of you who wish to learn more can find it.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: MDT on Tuesday, September 30 2008 @ 09:27 PM EDT |
If any, put something in the title please.
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MDT on Tuesday, September 30 2008 @ 09:28 PM EDT |
With clicky's if you please.
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- ..repost: I was wondering what the Wall Street Bail Out was all about... ;o) - Authored by: arnt on Tuesday, September 30 2008 @ 09:42 PM EDT
- It gets sillier! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 03:38 AM EDT
- ...mapping between ISO/IEC 26300 (ODF) and ISO/IEC 29500 (OOXML) - Authored by: Winter on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 09:52 AM EDT
- MS promotion - no firefox - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 10:49 AM EDT
- I didn't realize the U.S. housing market was so bad! - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 11:26 AM EDT
- Knuckleheads - Authored by: Knucklehead on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 01:04 PM EDT
- Alex Brown is blogging a lot at the moment - Authored by: Alan Bell on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 01:51 PM EDT
- IBM on track - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 07:45 PM EDT
- Lawsuit over file format conversion? - Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 03:56 PM EDT
- Reg Article: Emails show journalist rigged Wikipedia's naked shorts - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 02 2008 @ 12:13 AM EDT
- German Court: RapidShare must remove infringing content proactively - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 02 2008 @ 01:35 AM EDT
- Forbes columnist manipulates Wikipedia and helps building economic crisis - Authored by: Winter on Thursday, October 02 2008 @ 03:07 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: MDT on Tuesday, September 30 2008 @ 09:30 PM EDT |
To discuss articles in the News Picks Listing. Clickies if you can.
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2008 @ 10:25 PM EDT |
| OK, don't talk to Officer Burch in a small room. Does that extend to the police
officer who pulls up beside you and asks "Did you see a guy run through your
backyard? Can I look back there?"
What about my friend's fiancee? Do I
direct all questions through my lawyer? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2008 @ 11:01 PM EDT |
| ...or is that outside the domain of Groklaw? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2008 @ 11:18 PM EDT |
I would like to suggest to the readers of Groklaw that they indulge themselves
into The Federalist Papers. Particularly number 84, written by Hamilton, in
which he argues *against* a "Bill of Rights."
Quoting paper 84:
"I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the
extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed
Constitution but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions
to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a
colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things
shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be
said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is
given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a
provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would
furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
They might urge with a semblance of reason that the Constitution ought not to be
charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which
was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the
press afforded a clear implication that a power to prescribe proper regulations
concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may
serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine
of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of
rights."
Can anyone reading Groklaw honestly state our federal government and most of the
several state governments have done everything possible to usurp our right?
Just consider the Patriot Act and the Military Commission Act as two of many
thousands of examples.
krp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2008 @ 11:31 PM EDT |
| 1-4 and 6-10. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2008 @ 11:34 PM EDT |
1. On the advice of my attorneys I refuse to answer on the grounds it may
incriminate me.
2. This may be hard to utter when you are being waterboarded.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Tuesday, September 30 2008 @ 11:40 PM EDT |
| I can't get the video and there's not a whole lot of explaining without it.
Also, what about all the other parts, not dealing with self-incrimination? For
example, the "due process" and "just compensation" -- how are each
decided?
---
-- grouch
GNU/Linux obeys you.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- huh? - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 02:09 AM EDT
- huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 02:24 AM EDT
- huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 02:42 AM EDT
- huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 06:41 AM EDT
- There's a mpeg format download link - Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 07:54 AM EDT
- thanks! - Authored by: grouch on Thursday, October 02 2008 @ 06:21 AM EDT
- Nutshell Summary - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 11:10 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: artp on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 12:03 AM EDT |
I've been quiet on this topic so far...
Back to Amendment 1:
None of the amendments are absolute. They are all part of the same seamless
garment, to borrow a phrase. Over the years, the courts have intepreted them to
delineate the boundaries of the amendments.
I have no answers, but I have dug up a lot of unanswered questions.
First, the Amendments apply to the government, not the people. This may be the
crux off the problem. Most of us argue from our own standpoint, that of the
people. We don't like to see our rights abridged. The government, OTOH, badly
needs to be abridged.
The amendment states that no laws passed by the government may abridge these
rights. But laws have been passed that have abridged free speech. Obscenity laws
come to mind. Obscenity laws are no more than a reflection of community
standards, if they are drafted properly. Old obscenity laws might still be in
force if there were any community standards left. (Only half joking.)
My community regularly represses speech based on cultural and religious
standards. Substitute moral or ethical for religious if you prefer those terms.
I bet your community does, too. But those aren't laws. They are community mores.
Government needs to reflect the will of the people. As the people change, so
will the government, to a greater or lesser degree. As laws are passed or
modified, they will match the Constitution and the will of the people more or
less. It is a moving target.
The issues of privacy, which were not as important before electronic technology
spread personal information beyond the community that knew it all anyway, were
not anticipated to be important to the First Amendment. Today, they are. Privacy
needs to be given a constitutional basis if it is going to modify the existing
amendments. In the old days, there was no privacy. As they used to say (and
still do in smaller communities) the news gets home before you do.
So, PJ, I don't think that the issues are as black and white as you paint them.
I understand your concern with the issues. I absolutely see the need for you,
and other anonymous bloggers, to continue your work unmolested. But, like
anything else, we need to understand the boundaries.
I DO want Groklaw to continue. I DON'T want junk email, junk postal mail,
unsolicited telphone calls of ANY kind (I paid for the phone, thank you very
much), or traveling salesmen bothering my home. Unless I opt in. I don't even
like the ice cream truck breaking the peace in the summer, but then, I'm a
curmudgeon about high-volume carrilons.
I think that there is a dialogue that needs to happen about these issues, PJ. It
isn't over yet. There are many unanswered questions, and many overlapping rights
that need to come to a compromise, and have boundaries defined.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: designerfx on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 12:46 AM EDT |
http://boingboing.net/2008/07/28/law-prof-and-cop-agr.html
was the link that had it...I swear I might have sent it to you pj, maybe not?
Anyway....just to show, it's thankfully gotten some serious coverage :)
Long and short answer: never talk to a cop, and that includes if you're pulled
over for "speeding"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 12:47 AM EDT |
It's bedrock
Is that, perchance, why the American is
such a litigious society?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 12:57 AM EDT |
>he explains 8 reasons why attorneys always tell
>their clients not to talk to the police.
Actually I asked a lawyer for an advice and he told me
that there are two reasonable things to do:
1) Say *NOTHING* till you talk to your lawyer.
2) Tell the truth, the all the truth, and
nothing but the truth.
Use some common sense to decide which one to do.
(E.g. I had seen a hit & run accident. I told the police
exactly what I had seen because I assumed that I had nothing
to lose by telling the truth.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 01:50 AM EDT |
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do
not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything
you do say may be given in evidence."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 02:37 AM EDT |
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation."
This last part of the 5th amendment seems quite relevant to the current
"bailout" plans, where $700,000,000,000.00 is proposed to be taken
from taxpayers and given to shareholders of imprudent banking institutions.
Similarly, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, which took around
$150,000,000,000.00 of taxpayer funds and gave it as a "gift" of $300
per person, seems implicated by the Fifth amendment.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 03:53 AM EDT |
Followup to previous, and to item 2) Obama has apparantly also been ordered to
produce a "certified" copy of his "Certificate of
Citizenship*."
[*Unclear to me as to exactly what this is. In any case it's item number two of
three (of the missing) ordered production of documents, as listed above)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 04:44 AM EDT |
Some of us still live in Great Britain, and still get brought up to say
"God Save The Queen !" in the same way that you get brought up to say
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag and to the Republic for which it
stands".
We're not going to get into a fight about it ... armies and all that. We are
going to welcome each other to our countries as tourists and as corporate
employees, forever, I hope.
But the commercial laws are inalienably different.
Please keep explaining your understanding of the USA ones. Howerver, your
attorney does not even have the right-of-audience in my court.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 04:56 AM EDT |
A big thanks PJ for this great article and
wonderful video.
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 04:58 AM EDT |
What I got from the video is that "the genius of the founders of the US
legal system" has been undermined.
This video, to me, points out serious deficiencies of the system. Why should it
ever be to your disadvantage to tell the truth?
It would make more sense to just forbid the police to question anyone, than to
advise everyone not to talk to the police.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gotan on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 07:20 AM EDT |
| Just curious to know if its one law for the USers and another for non USers. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 08:37 AM EDT |
The original purpose of the Fith Amendment is a question history. The present
purpose of the Fith Amendment is a question of politics.
Maybe make that "The Legal Effect of the Fifth Amendment"?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 08:56 AM EDT |
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
How does this square with the Supreme Court ruling in "U.S. Supreme Court
rendered its 5 to 4 landmark eminent domain decision in Kelo v. City of New
London. 1255 S. Ct. 2655, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5011 (June 23, 2005" legalizing
the seizure of private property in order to give to redistribute it to a third
private party so that the third party may reap the economic benefits of
redevelopment?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 09:30 AM EDT |
Something I have always found interesting about this. First off, I am not an
English major so I may be way off here. There are three semi-colons in the 5th
Amendment. These are used to separate four ideas. The first is "Grand
Jury", the second is "Double Jeopardy", the third is "Self
incrimination" and the fourth is "Private Property". Each one of
these is self contained.
Notice how "Self incrimination" is setup:
"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"
These are commas separating the clauses in this sentence. Let’s look at this
sentence:
"Jimmy cannot go outside, nor can he play games, watch TV or use the phone,
without finishing his homework."
This sentence implies that Jimmy cannot go outside, watch TV, play games or use
the phone until he finishes his homework. If Jimmy finishes his homework, he
can go outside, play games, watch TV or use the phone.
Now we know in the US you can be deprived of life, liberty or property with due
process of law. That’s what prisons and the electric chair are for. So we can
be "deprived of life, liberty or property' with due process of law. Why do
we separate 'compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself" from the rest of this sentence? These are not semi-colons
separating ideas in a sentence, these are commas separating a list of related
items in an idea.
In other words, you CAN be compelled to be a witness against yourself with due
process of law. If someone pleads the 5th, a separate "due process of
law" must take place to determine if that person can be compelled to be a
witness against him/herself.
Min Donner (Not logged in. Actually haven't logged in in about a year)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 10:35 AM EDT |
I have always viewed the 5th amendment as a protection of the innocent from far
reaching questioning. There is a quote that always stands my hair on end and
reinforces my view that the 5th remain one of out most important right.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I
will find something which will hang him."
Cardinal Richelieu[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mexaly on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 10:44 AM EDT |
I thought it was a webpage on Wikipedia.
---
My thanks go out to PJ and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hamstring on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
Since the original prescription that one can not face penalties more than
one time for the same crime, how is it that we have come to today, where people
are tried multiple times for crimes?
nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb
Of course the best example would be a famous murder
trial, where the person was found not guilty in criminal trial. Shortly
thereafter, the same person was found guilty in a civil trial for the same
crime.
It is also my understanding, that the Civil trial would have
taken place (and was filed) regardless of the Criminal cases
outcome.
How is this not double jeopardy? ---
# echo
"Mjdsptpgu Svdlt" | tr [b-z] [a-y]
# IANAL and do not like Monopoly [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 12:36 PM EDT |
Do NOT forget the necessary chaining affect of 14th admendment, because we live
in states. Read all about it.
Bill of rights + declaration of independence + 14th = Minimum parts for real
rights.
Real world rights:
Money + power + education + large group + resources + being ahead of others =
Real rights. And even that is not enough. Hitler sure destroyed his own
country.
Real world rights: also needs an ACTIVE moderates to keep everything balanced. A
large middle class in not just enough.
Keep up the good work PJ, although I wonder how many years you can keep going
without b u r n o u t. It happens.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
| Born one and will die one. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PeteS on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 01:35 PM EDT |
Great article, PJ.
I am a UK national, but spent over 25 years in the USA where I studied various
things, including the Constitution and constitutional law.
I was, and still am, amused (in a way) and disappointed at the general level of
knowledge within the USA of the constitution; I was having a conversation with a
natural born American and he stated that he believed the President could order
war and only consulted congress as 'a matter of courtesy' - notwithstanding the
War Powers Act (WW2)[which many constitutional scholars still maintain as
untenable, although not SCOTUS], I suggested he read the constitution.[Note to
other readers - the constitution reserves the right to declare war to the
congress]
Oddly enough, he never had read the constitution but trusted what the
'authorities' told him, yet considered himself an 'informed citizen'. (Note it's
not just the USA - I find this in virtually every country including my own home
country).
Interesting, all the same, and with the power of Groklaw, perhaps more will
learn about the fundamental laws of the USA.
Cheers
PeteS
---
Only the truly mediocre are always at their best[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 01:50 PM EDT |
It's the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. It is NOT an -amendment- to the
Bill of Rights; it is a -part- of the Bill of Rights.
(Nitpicky, I know.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: vb on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 03:11 PM EDT |
"nor shall private property be taken for public use...."
It's interesting to me the that it says nothing about taking public property for
private use. I see both as equally wrong. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 04:40 PM EDT |
This whole "don't speak to the police" thing is designed to reduce
your chance of getting convicted. The other side of the coin is that it also
reduces the chance of the guilty party getting convicted. How are the police
supposed to do their job if nobody tells them anything? They need witness
statements, if you refuse to tell them what you saw because you're afraid it
might get you in trouble then you're just letting the guilty party get off free.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 07:04 PM EDT |
Courts are obligated to uphold the Constitution, and the higher you
go in the US legal system, the more likely they are to do
so.
Sorry, PJ, but this is absolute nonsense. It may be
true that the courts are obligated to follow the constitution, but they
absolutely do not do it. The constitution absolutely forbids
interference with freedom of speech. The Supreme Court says interference is
perfectly OK. The Constitution says that, past a certain monetary threshold, a
defendant is entitled to a jury trial. The Supreme Court says no. The
Constitution guarantees habeas corpus. The Supreme Court says no. The justices
rule based purely on prejudice and ideology. Judges are universally more
interested in playing word games than administering justice. Until the time
that judges are held personally liable for their crimes there will be no justice
in the United States.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 08:09 PM EDT |
Is it just my area of the US or is it universal that the internet is slowing
down tremendously?
The issue to me appears to be that more and more of the major web
sites are acting like CNN and ABC who believe that a computer is a TV
and that everything is suppose to be streamed video. This especially
goes for adds. What then appears to happen is that the various
brousers, I use several including IE, Foxfire, and Konqueror on several
different boxes at several different locations each using a different ISP
all with the same issue.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: evanprodromou on Thursday, October 02 2008 @ 12:13 AM EDT |
What kind of suckers do you think we are? Whoever heard of the
"Congrefs" of the United States? C'MON![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pcrooker on Thursday, October 02 2008 @ 08:27 AM EDT |
The policeman said in the video that he is permitted to lie in interviews. Also,
as I understand, lawyers also can lie in court - they don't have to take an oath
or affirmation to tell the truth when they enter the court or begin questioning.
We only have to look at the antics in the court cases presented here to know
they do.
To me, lying to a defendant or witness to elicit information or evidence is a
type of coercion. I also feel that by lying or knowingly twisting the truth or
omitting a truth, a lawyer is perverting the course of justice.
How is this a fair and just process? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 02 2008 @ 08:57 AM EDT |
man the constitution is just marvelous
I swear aliens wrote it that saw civilizations destroy themselves and they wrote
from it that past experience. LOL
I highly recommend reading it multiply times.
sad thing is I doubt some of our elected officials have read it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 02 2008 @ 01:43 PM EDT |
"No person shall be held..."
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law..."
Note, it says no "person", not no "citizen".
As long as you are not defined as a person, you have no protection.
What really bothers me is it is possible for you to have your property
confiscated, ie you can't use your bank account to hire a lawyer, to defend
yourself, because the property is allegedly illegally obtained. However you are
supposedly presumed innocent until proven guilty. I fail to understand how it
is permitted to not to be able to protect yourself in court.
That hardly begins to address the impact the "patriot" act has on our
constitutionally guarenteed rights. But if you speak out to defend the
constitution, you are classed as un-patriotic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
