Part 5 in our series on the Bill of Rights.
Amendment 5 -
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.
Prior to our Constitution, If a prosecutor didn't like the verdict, they could retry you. This led to alot of corruption, ruining of lives via the courts for personal reasons. (Given the cost of trials, this is still a regular tactic of groups like the ACLU, but that's not the point of this writing.)
This Amendment protects us from having to answer to charges without having faced the courts. The exception is for those involving the military during a time of War or 'public danger,' in which case the soldier ends up facing a military tribunal (for which they have fewer rights than we do, despite public calls that military tribunals sweep crimes under the carpet to protect soldiers)
One important thing is the idea of 'double jeopardy' . . . which, unlike the tv show's special prize, keeps people from facing trial for the same incident more than once, and keeps a person safe from such life-destroying behavior on the part of corrupt prosecutors.
The individual was given the right to ignore questions that would cause them to give damning evidence against themselves (perhaps what this right is most famous for), as well as the ability to retain their possessions unless the courts have specifically handed out a fine.
Added in, here, is the idea, also, that property cannot be taken from an individual for the government's use, unless they are paid for it.
Misuse: With this amendment, the primary misuse is on the part of the government, in the taking of land. It was often decided that the government could take 'right of way' from a landowner for the building or renovation of roads or bridges. Some could go so far as to allow this process for the construction of government buildings. However, in cases in Hawaii and in the Northeast, some local governments have taken this quite too far. Believing that 'public use' could be twisted to mean 'taxes,' these city governments decided that they would take land away from homeowners, multiple homeowners entire plots at a time, to be sold (at a hugely discounted price) to a commercial developer to build a shopping center or other private enterprise.
The landowners were paid for their land, but paid the price for their land as though it was condemned, which noone but the governments thought was 'just compensation.' The city's reasoning was that the city could get more revenue in taxes from businesses than from the homeowners. That extra tax revenue, they contended, was of 'public use.'
Naturally, the homeowners fought the decision. In both cases, they were told that because the city or state did not have specific laws limiting the 'right' of the government to take your land, pay you a pittance, then sell it cheaply to a commercial developer (who makes ungodly profits off the shady deal), there was nothing the courts coud do.
Rubbish. Even a gradeschooler can recognize that the government on ANY level has no right to take your land and sell ie to me to use as I see fit, and that is in no way like buying a section of your land abutting a street to widen a street. In both cases, the 5th Amendment was thrown out the window so that a developer and a city government could get money.
The case in the Northeast, the landowners were, while fighting the city's decisions, considered squatters. "Back Rent" was applied to each one of them, costing more than they got for their land (MUCH more) . . . so now the developer gets the land for free, plus some extra money, all for his part in the 'legal' theft of land.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I see this a whole bunch in my city. We are a middle sized city but are attracting more and more people so housing boomed within the last five years, obviously slipping a bit now. Anyways we have one big problem in my town, traffic. We are at the edge of two freeway intersecting and people commuting always use our town to cut threw.
So our town has done a lot of road expanding and buying people's property for public use. And at least in my town, the deals were ridiculous. This one spot of land by a bridge the city wanted to extend was owned by a man who, with the help of his family, had a small trucking business. So it had room for about 6 trucks and a shabby little house. My city paid him 2.1 million dollars for it. Then they sneezed on his house and it fell over(this place was really shabby.) Anyways it was simply ridiculous for a spot of land that small and the bridge still hasn't been widened.
Furthermore whenever the city wants to bring in big businesses the town usually goes nuts at public meetings. They recently wanted to bring in a 2nd Costco and everyone was just like hell no...well Costco can't come in b/c of an active polis.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Well, I would suggest that the example you give is NOT the norm. Generally, the government comes in for a section of your property and gives you an offer that is below the value of the land. If you refuse, they condemn that section of land and then say that they are taking it under the right of eminent domain, then give you a smaller amount.
for things like building bridges or widening roads, I have no problem with it, as that was the intent... however, taking land from one private entity and giving it to another for the sake of more tax revenue is the exact opposite of what our country's Constitution is about.
I would even, on a bold note, go so far as to call such action oppressive and corrupt. (which, no doubt, is why such action was defended by a whole host of democrats, praising the action.)
Not the norm in my town. As long as the person is not an idiot and knows that the government wants/needs their land they aren't going to sell it for cheap. I don't think my city government has ever condemned a piece of land in the city, can't be sure but I've never heard about it.
And usually, cept in cases of family land. The city owned the land and you bought it from them. They still have over sight on everything that you do and as long as they pay you fair amounts for your land(my town it is more than fair) then they can do what they wish.
However combine an active polis with that mix and the corruption usually goes away, mainly b/c most cities have open councils where anyone can be heard. This type of action can usually be stopped by a city that cares enough to stand up and speak out, so why blame the government for your town's inaction.
Organize a bunch of people to sit in at your next town hall.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
heh... don't leave your town.
One I am definitley leaving my town, most boring place ever. Plus I could never afford to buy a house here, part of that housing boom made prices skyrocket.
And it is not like my town needs to be unique. Most if not all towns have open councils for the polis to come and speak there minds. It is up to the people to question there governments actions and do something if they believe they are wrong.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
It is true that it is up to the people, but in too many towns, power is given to the unelected officials.... they make decisions and have no populace to answer to.
Those people are at least appointed by elected officals so they answer to the polis. The people aren't left out, they are purposefully un-involved.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
In most cases, they are not. In most cases, they are hired.
I'm talking about things like zoning and planning people (The Commission may be appointed, but the workers and those who recommend policy that the COmmission votes on are not)
Along with the city and state groups that are involved in eminent domain. I know of someone who, for a living, contacts people to tell them that they are going to have to give up land, and tells them what their land is worth.
It isn't a pretty job.
But the people on the commission make ARE appointed by people we elect, so elect good people and the trickle down should also be good. And even if it is not, the people can speak to there well elected rep and he/she can condone such actions, using there influence to stop w/e is happening.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Ideally, you are correct... but what often happens with consolidated power (especially by those who are not elected) is quite another thing.
And no one gets elected on the idea that "I'll fire them!"
I remember an interview with the head of roads and bridges, either for the state of california or for a county in california. They had a major God-Complex issue.
I remember them saying (and I more or less quote) "You think the people you elect run this place, fine... The truth is, *I* run this place. Without me, roads do not get built or fixed, and if I saw fit, everything would come to a screeching halt."
He wasn't an elected official, and given the nature of government employee job security, it is nearly impossible to fire him. Instead, they live with him until he decides to retire.
He reminds me of the midget that ran the pig-poo power plant in Bartertown (From the Mad Max beyond Thunderdome movie). . . "Who runs Bartertown?" "Master Blaster runs Barter town." "Embargo lifted!"
But why do we live with it. If it is truly infringing on us, why don't the polis step up and stop it, through elected officals or other means.(I don't mean violence, but boycotting, protests, something along those lines.)
The truth is more people are content with "living" with the corruption than fixing it. People will, historically, pay more or do something undesirable rather than fight it. Why is that.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
I don't believe that protests or boycots would work. How do you boycott the government? Refuse to pay taxes? The IRS doesn't look kindly upon that.
Protests tend to become nothing more than whine-fests, and really DON'T accomplish things anymore, despite what protestors say.
The truth is, there is nothing we CAN do, as we keep slipping into Socialism, which only gives such corruption even more power.
i thought we weren't talking bout gov't anymore but contrators. Anyways there is a way to change gov't, elect good leaders.
At one point protests were incredibly effective, as I recall had something to do with gaining rights for millions of Americans.
Your view on life seems kind of depressing for my tastes.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
and, since the 1960's what good have protests accomplished? (some hold that the protests were not neccessary, since the nation was moving towards inclusion anyway, with the exception of the Democrats, which resisted integration.)
As for my view being depressing... I admit that it is. But to be 'happy' for the sake of being happy, at the cost of ignoring reality, is not a step up.
However, my perspective is only depressing because I know what this country is able to do if we continue to live free, but I see it sliding into socialism instead.
For a Conservative like myself, who thrives on personal responsibility, independent living and free thought, the idea of Socialism is a python, wrapped around you.... squeezing a bit more with each breath you take.
Again don't confuse liberals with democrats. Liberals were for integration, conservatives/religious were againist it. After the 60's is when the new right came into play effectivley switching the political parties.
I'm not saying you should be happy for the sake of being happy, however there is much to be happy about and you seem to dwell on the unhappy points you see around you. Your unhappiness about the negative only compounds the anguish you feel, why not trying to fix the negative while relishing in the positive aspects of life?
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
But, even in the 1960's, the Democrats were the Democrats.
I STILL hold that the Democrats are the party oppressing minorities, with programs like EEOC and Affirmative Action.... programs that tell a minority "You're not good enough on your own, but don't worry, we'll MAKE them hire you, just because of your race!"
That creates the dependend mindset that there is this division of racism where it does not exist, and CULTIVATES a racist view (Particularly of white people who are, by many, assumed to be racist, which is why such EEOC and Aff Action programs were made.)
I also hold that the Democrat Party's views on a large government and high taxes hurt the poorer Americans, of whom, many are minorities. So they make the minorities more poor and keep them mentally oppressed.
but that's my view. heh. I'm sure yours differs.. lol.
As far as being happy and sad... I am often happy. I love to go target shooting, enjoy talking with friends, and I love the freedoms I have in this country. However, like Cassandra, what I (and others like me) see coming is largely ignored by the populace who, like chickens being fattened up for slaughter, keeps pecking through the feed we are given, oblivious to what is happening.
For crying out loud, today's high schoolers aren't taught about the evils of Communism! They are laregly NOT taught about the deaths under the soviet empire, or about the love affair that the Democrats in the United States had with the soviets (Including FDR and Truman)
They're taught that Nixon was at fault for the failure of the Vietnam war (and not the previous Kennedy and Johnson administrations which boned up on the job.) All they are ever taught about Nixon is that he was an evil guy who tapped phone lines and was responsible for vietnam.... (even though everyone before him did EXACTLY what he did, but he was a Republican that the Democrats wanted to burn for his anti-communist stances, and he was not as charasmatic as good ol' Kennedy)
I've read textbooks which claim that the United States violated the Geneva convention by allowing POW's from the Korean Conflict to remain here if they wished... but are NOT taught that those who chose to return home to North Korea or China were executed for having been 'tainted' by the West.
Some teachers even go so far as to teach that the United States was at fault (or were involved in) the September 11th attacks in 2001. They're taught that President Bush engaged in an illegal war for oil.
I fear for the future, because they are not being taught the past.
Those who don't know it, repeat it.
And even the people who know it repeat it.
Democrats and republicans had opposite bases until after the 1960's. The new right formed to counter the counterculture and the intellects and liberals were pushed away...and joining the democratic party.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
I see a party that, since the end of World War 2, has sided with, defended and coddled Soviet Communism. I see a party that debased and tried to destroy anyone who opposed or shined light on the Soviets.
I see no real difference between how Kennedy and Johnson dealt with Vietnam and how Clinton dealt with Bosnia (except that Clinton didn't institute a Draft)
Democrats since Wilson have tried to make more and more entitlment programs, Wilson, Johnson, Carter, Clinton... even now, with Hillary and the rest of the Demcorats, they are trying to make MORE entitlement programs (like Universal Healthcare)
You are right that there was a change of sorts. The Republicans became the Conservative party.... not by any real movement of their own, but by a constant leftward slide by the Democrats, starting shortly after the end of the Civil war.
Unfortunately, over the past 20 years, the Republicans have started to move to the left as well.
Nothing to add. Just needed a place to test the new signature.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail