|
printable version
- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
View article without comments
by US Citizen
Friday, Jan. 16, 2004 at 6:39 PM
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other 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...
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other 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.
Note: A Grand Jury is comprised of 12 to 23 persons who decide if evidence warrants trial.
Due Process interpretation brings many cases to Supreme Court.
The fifth is used frequently in congressional hearings.
Report this post as:
by more rational
Saturday, Jan. 17, 2004 at 3:47 AM
It seems to be gone gone gone. Just declare a "war" on drugs and seize everything. Declare a "war" on terrorism and you can forget about juries. Make so many laws that if they don't get you on one violation, they'll get you on another... double jeopardy in full effect.
Report this post as:
by A. Gore
Saturday, Jan. 17, 2004 at 5:08 AM
You say this amendment is "gone gone gone".
Hardly. No one has "seized everything". As for non-citizens captured in foreign lands engaged in illegal hostilities (no visible uniforms as required by Geneva Conventions) against the US, they have no rights under the US constitution.
However, you're right that some parts of the 5th are weakened:
Environmental regulations can turn valuable property into a useless swamp with no due process. Yikes.
Report this post as:
by more rational
Monday, Jan. 19, 2004 at 11:43 AM
That applies to criminal cases, not to development of land.
Development goes through an EIR process, where impacts are analyzed before development starts. Developers hate environmental regulations, but people love them. Environmental laws have cleaned up the air in LA, improving it even though the population increased.
As for swamps.... if all you've got is swamps, you'll want to see a building. If all you've got is buildings, you'd love to see a swamp. I bet the people who write environmental laws are not living on a swamp, cooking an alligator on the BBQ, getting high on homemade whiskey and the homegrown, and having sex with their cousins. Though I'm sure a few wish they could be.
Report this post as:
|