The Text of the Fifth Amendment
Jun. 23rd, 2005 10:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
billroperJust so that we have in front of us the thing that we're discussing in my previous post, I went out and dug this up from a copy of the Constitution:
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 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.
Seems clear to me. Your mileage may vary if you're a Supreme Court Justice.
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 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.
Seems clear to me. Your mileage may vary if you're a Supreme Court Justice.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 03:19 am (UTC)B
no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 03:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 04:39 am (UTC)In general, the body of interpretation and mutual understanding that we refer to as the Constitution is a pretty good effort, but I would be much happier if I actually saw a solider connection between the rights we assume we have and the actual words in the document. Still, I think what we have is much better than what we'd get if We The People had to write a new one today.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 12:21 pm (UTC)This whole situation just stinks, because the people who are making the ultimate decision are politicians, and more and more these days it seems the sole job of a politician is to get reelected. And who is going to be more useful to a politician when it comes to getting reelected. Joe Homeowner, or big mega developer. I think I know which one is more likely to donate large chunks of change to a campaign fund.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 09:24 am (UTC)When I was at school, the library had a very old and battered LP of the American constitution, read by John McIntire and a bunch of actors representing the four regions of America. I borrowed it a lot when we got an LP-capable record player, and I still hope to find it on tape or CD one of these days. For a completely apolitical child, I found it fascinating...
no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 02:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-25 12:22 am (UTC)Amazon.co.uk (where I did search, but jibbed halfway through 2000+ entries) quotes me on average thirty quid, so I've gone for the cheaper option...
no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 04:50 pm (UTC)The government *can* take the land they want; they just have to pay the market rate for it. My thought on the Connecticut case is that the land in question may have increased astronomically in value.
Certain of my cousins in northern lower Michigan successfully stalled a major highway (US 131 north of Reed City) this way. Depending on who is telling the tale, they either re-routed the highway, certain cousins got a lot of money for their land, or both, before the highway got built.
I recently discovered that a certain branch of my ancestral tree was uprooted from New Jersey by the British during the Revolution; they resettled in Delaware County, New York, and two generations later, they were displaced by the reservoir for New York City.
Face it; in America, we rent the land for the price of property taxes. The government effectively owns it all.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 04:54 am (UTC)(brought to you by a run-on sentence.)
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 07:43 am (UTC)B
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 01:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 05:43 am (UTC)http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004744.php#more
It makes some interesting points I had not considered. (For one, I didn't realize the narrowness of the decision.) If I cared more, I would find more to read about this.
B
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 06:00 pm (UTC)I don't think so.
(One could argue that Mayor Bilandic was turned out as a result of voter outrage, but that wasn't over corruption -- save for the fact that Bridgeport apparently did get plowed -- that was over making really stupid statements in the face of a really big snowfall.)
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 08:05 pm (UTC)B
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 10:43 pm (UTC)I would theorize that one of the purposes of the Bill of Rights is to prevent us from doing things that might "seem like a good idea" at the expense of the rights of the individual.