5th amendment eliminated.

[Nikes]

The supreme court said goodbye to the 5th amendment. Link below.

Your thoughts?

You must be registered for see links

 

[OfficialRikudouSennin]

Screw the government

 

[Punk Hazard]

Dat busted link...

 

[Cursed Prince]

Doesnt matter to me, cuz I know what to do

 

[Nikes]

Doesnt matter to me, cuz I know what to do

It's still wrong.

 

[Darth Vader]

I don't know if I believe this.

 

[J3ig Guy]

Crap baskets.

 

[magicman420]

why the hell does our government purposfuly screw us all over?

 

[Jack Spicer]

Eh. Don't do bad stuff and you'll never have to deal with the government to a massive extent.

 

[Nikes]

Eh. Don't do bad stuff and you'll never have to deal with the government to a massive extent.

The main point is that they actually did this.

To every normal non crime committing person this means jack shit, but it's the principal, the idea that they would actually eliminate the 5th amendment as a right.

 

[magicman420]

The main point is that they actually did this.

To every normal non crime committing person this means jack shit, but it's the principal, the idea that they would actually eliminate the 5th amendment as a right.

i agree completly

 

[FitzChivalry Farseer]

No they ddnt. One would have to invoke the fifth amendment in a more specific manner that is all

 

[Nikes]

No they ddnt. One would have to invoke the fifth amendment in a more specific manner that is all

But they did, it was a RIGHT before, with no need to declare it. It is no longer a RIGHT.

 

[Deviation]

This isn't legit. Why post something that isn't real?

 

[Aim64C]

Eh. Don't do bad stuff and you'll never have to deal with the government to a massive extent.

Chances are you are in violation of some law or another at any given time. Ignorance of the law does not change your responsibility to live by it (and if you lived by the law, you'd most probably not be able to live).

There are plenty of Bloombergs out there - people who want to make it illegal for you to buy soda of a certain size, people who want to make it illegal to use the elevator unless handicapped, etc. We've already gone and ****ed ourselves by letting these ... things ... into our governmental offices.

That is why it matters. The number of ways to become a criminal steadily increases - well past what people recognize as criminal behavior and into merely objectionable behavior... then into undesirable social behavior.

And you know we can't have those undesirables in our cities. No one wants to go into a restaurant to eat and have to bear the sight of some morbidly obese woman. *gasp* - that's a great idea! We can sponsor 'mandatory exercise programs' for these people. Pack them up into trains and then ship them to specialized camps that will get them in shape!

.... The scary thing is that I can actually see that idea proposed here before too much longer.

Which is why I draw the ultimate line at the 2nd Amendment. They're tiptoeing a dangerous line with it, already. That is a hair-trigger issue... the targets are already marked and I'd imagine there are militia operatives with contingency operations already in place... 72 hours at the most. That's all it would take to decapitate this nation. Probably could be done within 12 if you had solid organization and good participation.

Of course... "whose office is it, anyway" will take effect - and we'll likely descend into infighting between various factions... but it wouldn't be a war if it wasn't a civil one.

This isn't legit. Why post something that isn't real?

You must be registered for see links

It is, apparently.

"In a move described as “a blow to the fundamental right of citizens to remain silent,” the court’s opinion said people who are not under arrest must invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to avoid having their refusal to answer police questions used against them in a subsequent criminal trial.

The 5-4 decision in Salinas v. Texas had the court affirm the conviction of Genovevo Salinas. He was found guilty of homicide after prosecutors argued his silence during a police interview prior to his arrest was a “very important piece of evidence” and that only a guilty person would have remained silent when questioned about his connection to a crime.

In the opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said Salinas “was required to assert the privilege in order to benefit from it,” even though a person questioned while under arrest could not have his silence used against him."

I'm liking my "watertower" model of government more and more every day.

What's that?

Just like when hunting ogres - you gather the town with your torches and pitch-forks. Then, you take your local politicians who have been defecating all over your rights and suspend them from the water tower via their trachea. Allow them to sit there and think about what they've done while warning others what happens when you tell the natives that the paper they formed their system of government around is no longer valid.

Perhaps a system of government where the leadership is ritualistically sacrificed at the end of their term would be a more sustainable government.

 

[FitzChivalry Farseer]

But they did, it was a RIGHT before, with no need to declare it. It is no longer a RIGHT.

Of course not, weve always had to invoke our fifth amendment by at least saying " I plead the fifth". All we have to do now is something more specific, im pretty sure the while nation would be in an uproar if they fid take away the fifth

 

[Aim64C]

Of course not, weve always had to invoke our fifth amendment by at least saying " I plead the fifth". All we have to do now is something more specific, im pretty sure the while nation would be in an uproar if they fid take away the fifth

This is incorrect. You are not required to say: "I take the fifth."

The key issue to this case is that Salinas was -not- under arrest when he was brought in for questioning. The prosecution argued that since he stopped answering their questions, it was a strong sign of guilt.

Which is specifically what the Fifth Amendment is in place for.

Had Salinas been placed under arrest - a previous Supreme Court Ruling (Miranda vs Arizona) already established that the rights of the accused must be read to anyone placed under arrest to ensure that they understand their rights (this was specifically a case involving the Fifth Amendment - where Miranda claimed ignorance of the Fifth Amendment and was never informed of it by officers - thus being torn up by cross-examination without legal representation and having it used as legal evidence against him).

Thus, if he'd done this while under Arrest - it would not be 'admissible' in court as 'evidence.'

This voids key tenants of the Fifth Amendment and opens up avenues of abuse where someone not directly under interrogation can be incriminated based on their refusal to answer questions. This means every person who refuses to answer questions on the public record of any recorded event can have that submitted as 'evidence' that they are attempting to conceal their guilt.

Looking a little further - this is, apparently, not a new trend:

You must be registered for see links

In 2010, Berghius v. Thompkins, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals under interrogation must invoke their right to silence. The incident in question was after the police interrogated a suspect for hours (with him saying nothing) and using the response "Yes" to the question: "Do you pray to god to forgive you for killing those children?" ....

I'm sorry - but this goes back to the roots of the 5th amendment in both cases.

The very root of the 5th amendment is grounded in the idea that police cannot torture suspects and that failure to 'confess' or testify during trial cannot be used as evidence of guilt. The founders came from a time when the Puritans were under assault in Europe and, even in the Americas - the court practices followed and allowed such insanity as the Salem Witch Trials that were blatantly used by citizens to extort property from each other.

That was the importance of Giles Corey - he is -the- quintessential individual representing why the Fifth Amendment exists:

You must be registered for see links

"It is unusual for persons to refuse to plead, and extremely rare to find reports of persons who have been able to endure this painful form of death in silence. Since Corey refused to plead, he died in full possession of his estate, which would otherwise have been forfeited to the government.[8] It passed on to his two sons-in-law, in accordance to his will.[9]

The pressing of Giles Corey is unique in New England. It is similar to the case, in England, of Margaret Clitherow, who was arrested on March 10, 1586 for the crime of harboring priests, hearing Mass, and secretly being of the Catholic faith.[10]"

This echoes back to the darkest corners of our origins.

 

[chopstickchakra]

But they did, it was a RIGHT before, with no need to declare it. It is no longer a RIGHT.

Most people declare it anyway hence the expression I'm pleading/I plead the fifth.

 

[Penguin]

Most people cannot name off the amendments. Why do they care about something they don't even know?

 

[Jack Spicer]

Chances are you are in violation of some law or another at any given time. Ignorance of the law does not change your responsibility to live by it (and if you lived by the law, you'd most probably not be able to live).

There are plenty of Bloombergs out there - people who want to make it illegal for you to buy soda of a certain size, people who want to make it illegal to use the elevator unless handicapped, etc. We've already gone and ****ed ourselves by letting these ... things ... into our governmental offices.

That is why it matters. The number of ways to become a criminal steadily increases - well past what people recognize as criminal behavior and into merely objectionable behavior... then into undesirable social behavior.

And you know we can't have those undesirables in our cities. No one wants to go into a restaurant to eat and have to bear the sight of some morbidly obese woman. *gasp* - that's a great idea! We can sponsor 'mandatory exercise programs' for these people. Pack them up into trains and then ship them to specialized camps that will get them in shape!

.... The scary thing is that I can actually see that idea proposed here before too much longer.

Which is why I draw the ultimate line at the 2nd Amendment. They're tiptoeing a dangerous line with it, already. That is a hair-trigger issue... the targets are already marked and I'd imagine there are militia operatives with contingency operations already in place... 72 hours at the most. That's all it would take to decapitate this nation. Probably could be done within 12 if you had solid organization and good participation.

Of course... "whose office is it, anyway" will take effect - and we'll likely descend into infighting between various factions... but it wouldn't be a war if it wasn't a civil one.

Thanks Sarge. I'll be sure to tell Simmons your report.