• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why do we have the 4th & 5th Amendments?

radcen said:
The unnecessarily insulting tone of your response aside, no, we are not clear. You're being vague. Purposely? Are you afraid that you know your reason is bogus and won't stand up to scrutiny?

For starters, who is "they"? Are you being specific to certain people you don't like, or are you being generic? Please, be more specific.
Click to expand...

"They " , would be those that find is necessary to plea the fifth . Are we clear ?
 
Socrates1 said:
"They " , would be those that find is necessary to plea the fifth . Are we clear ?
Click to expand...

What sort of people would deem it necessary to plead 5? You mean only guilty people? Because surely innocent people have no reason to stay out of jail. They don't need to hide anything, so why shouldn't they be compelled to answer questions from their government masters?

We can always trust in our government to do what's right, right? So why would anyone need a Constitutional protection unless they were in fact guilty of something? Why do we need a 5th Amendment at all? If everyone were required to confess to any wrongdoing, then surely we could put all the bad guys in jail while innocent, law abiding citizens could be immune to persecution. Our Founding Fathers must have surely been smoking dope to have come up with this idiotic constitution that protects all citizens from governmental abuse of power.
 
Socrates1 said:
Well the 5th was written for the corrupt lying Clinton's !
Click to expand...

Not just for them, but they sure know how to take advantage of it...

Dittohead not! said:
They are there to protect individual liberty from government overreach of course. Let's see what they say:

*

We've been ignoring this one at our peril. There's the so called "Patriot" act, a most unpatriotic act. Then, there's "stop and frisk," but that one is only applied to blacks, so who cares anyway?




*

That one is pretty much intact except for the bolded part, which people seem to think has been repealed. The so called "war on drugs", one of the biggest and most expensive failed government projects of all time, has eliminated that part through asset forfeiture laws.

What is needed is an organization as powerful as the NRA and as focused on the fourth and fifth amendments as that organization is on the second.
Click to expand...

I applied profiling and stop and frisk to anyone, it just so happens that since Blacks commit 70% of the crime, they get more focus. Not hard to figure out.
I agree on the Patriot Act. I did my best to complain loud and long over that to the Bush Adm. Didn't matter, the Shadow Govt. extends to both parties.

rocket88 said:
It was also good enough for Oliver North. Conservatives also use it.
Click to expand...

But Oliver North used it with such aplomb. :lol:
 
radcen said:
What's wrong with pleading the 5th?

You come off as someone who wishes we could bring back the 3rd degree.
Click to expand...

Do you think everyone working for Hillary should be able to plea the fifth ? Do you see something so wrong about that ? Who pays their salary ?
 
Brewdog said:
What sort of people would deem it necessary to plead 5? You mean only guilty people? Because surely innocent people have no reason to stay out of jail. They don't need to hide anything, so why shouldn't they be compelled to answer questions from their government masters?

We can always trust in our government to do what's right, right? So why would anyone need a Constitutional protection unless they were in fact guilty of something? Why do we need a 5th Amendment at all? If everyone were required to confess to any wrongdoing, then surely we could put all the bad guys in jail while innocent, law abiding citizens could be immune to persecution. Our Founding Fathers must have surely been smoking dope to have come up with this idiotic constitution that protects all citizens from governmental abuse of power.
Click to expand...

The government masters you refer to are actually the taxpayers and voters of the USA ! And when everyone working for Hillary finds the need to plea the fifth there is a problem , a major problem ! Clear ?
 
radcen said:
Why do we have the 4th & 5th Amendments?

Open-ended question.

To hear one side tell it, they are sacrosanct and should never be violated, in either letter or spirit, to the point that we can never be sure of someone's guilt or innocence. To hear the other side tell it, they are nothing more than an impediment to reasonable law-and-order and we all suffer because of them.

But go back to when they were written. *WHY* were they deemed necessary? And do those reasons still old up today?
Click to expand...

We have the entire BOR because the Constitution would not have been ratified without it.

Unlike today's americans, people then understood that persons elected to powerful positions would eventually abuse their power, so they demanded a bill of rights. As other posters have noted, people then were very well aware of abuses by The Crown and the British Government in general, and they wanted the new government to be restrained from those abuses.
 
radcen said:
*WHY* were they deemed necessary? And do those reasons still old up today?
Click to expand...
4th Amendment was based on a long-standing principle of English law, and an attempt to restrain the government from potentially abusing its citizens.

The need to make in an amendment was most likely exacerbated by King George writing very broad warrants, so agents of the Crown could pretty much walk in anywhere unannounced and do a search.

5th Amendment also had its origins in 15th Century English law. Aside from preventing potential abuses, it also was based on the idea that a coerced confession is inherently problematic.

Most of those provisions make sense, although some have outlived their usefulness. To wit:

• It's vital for the courts to have some oversight of searches and warrants.

• Grand juries are a waste of time. A halfway decent prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich -- or not indict a police officer accused of wrongdoing.

• Protections against double jeopardy and self-incrimination are crucial.

• Due process is absolutely critical.

• It is also very important that the state cannot seize property without just compensation.

The spirit also holds up well. However, I think it would be better if we characterized rights not exclusively in negative terms, but also in positive terms. Consider the phrasing of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Search or seizure

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Detention or imprisonment

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

Arrest or detention

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;

(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and

(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

etc

IMO this is much clearer, and would help reduce some of the confusion around "unlawful combatants" and similar issues. The language can't prevent all forms of abuse, but I suspect it makes litigation a bit clearer.
 
Helix said:
that's because maybe drugs. i eagerly await one of our two useless parties actually doing something to address the injustice and unconstitutionality of civil forfeiture without due process. i expect that i'll be eagerly awaiting this until all of the trees in Sherwood Forest fossilize and are then worn away to sand by the wind, though.
Click to expand...

It would end if enough people spoke out against it, but if you mention asset forfeiture to the public at large, 90% of them have never heard of it and have no idea at all what it's all about.
 
MickeyW said:
Not just for them, but they sure know how to take advantage of it...



I applied profiling and stop and frisk to anyone, it just so happens that since Blacks commit 70% of the crime, they get more focus. Not hard to figure out.
I agree on the Patriot Act. I did my best to complain loud and long over that to the Bush Adm. Didn't matter, the Shadow Govt. extends to both parties.



But Oliver North used it with such aplomb. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes, didn't he? And he looked so patriotic and innocent in his dress uniform while explaining about selling arms to the enemy and then using the money to subvert the will of Congress. What a hero.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It would end if enough people spoke out against it, but if you mention asset forfeiture to the public at large, 90% of them have never heard of it and have no idea at all what it's all about.
Click to expand...

correct, and that fact is pretty depressing.
 
Brewdog said:
The 5th Amendment was written for everyone. Are you opposed to the right to abstain from testifying against oneself? If so, why?
Click to expand...

The Amendment does not protect someone from testifying against oneself. Its protects someone from incriminating themselves. Which is the point of immunities in exchange for testimony.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aberration said:
The Amendment does not protect someone from testifying against oneself. Its protects someone from incriminating themselves.
Click to expand...
Potato potahto?

Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...
 
Socrates1 said:
We pay their salary , clear ?
Click to expand...
So? :shrug:

You think people should be relegated to second-class status simply due to the source of their income? This is your idea of a fair justice system?

Or, maybe you have no intention whatsoever of being fair. Why do I suspect that this standard which you set is arbitrary and applies only to those whom you do not like? Why do I suspect that those whom you do like would get a pass?
 
radcen said:
Fair question. Apparently, paying for a service makes you absolute Lord over that person.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's how it was in the good old days, you know...


...when we had a feudal system.

Make the middle ages great again!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom