Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A propsoal: Change the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
6/25/05

Posted on 06/25/2005 10:42:41 AM PDT by lowbridge

The Fifth Amendment reads:

"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."

This should be changed to read:

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 and permission of the property owner.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: eminentdomain; fifthamendment; kelo; newlondon; newlondonvkelo; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
To: devolve
As for SCOTUS - I*d recomend that all of the five liberals review the insurance on all of their "property".

My husband was listening to a talk show yesterday out of Baltimore and the host was mentioning that Ginsburg has a house in DC - and was wondering if the District might not need that property for soemthing or other??????

21 posted on 06/25/2005 11:17:00 AM PDT by Gabz (My give-a-damn is busted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Wouldn't it be easier to change the supreme court ?


22 posted on 06/25/2005 11:19:21 AM PDT by oldbrowser (You lost the election.....get over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
In the end they will declare the government as the property owner

If you pay property taxes, (heh heh heh), the gubbmint is the owner. Ya'know what I mean Vern?

Feh! You own nothing, nor do I. "We all buy at the Company Store" and it's not about to change.

"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose"

Feh.

FMCDH(BITS)

23 posted on 06/25/2005 11:21:38 AM PDT by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

I recognize that. In this instance the property owners were not protected by their state. Is that where you want to leave it?

I will say, that these property owners may have in this instance leap-frogged state remedies to appeal to the SCOTUS.

If that is true, they better get to the state capital post haste.


24 posted on 06/25/2005 11:26:26 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (US socialist liberalism would be dead without the help of politicians who claim to be conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
In this instance the property owners were not protected by their state. Is that where you want to leave it?

Those people in Connectthedots will be long gone even if CT rewrites the state law.

"I see dead people"

FMCDH(BITS)

25 posted on 06/25/2005 11:30:21 AM PDT by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nothingnew

Let's hope you're wrong, even if we both pretty much agree.


26 posted on 06/25/2005 11:33:29 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (US socialist liberalism would be dead without the help of politicians who claim to be conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gabz; Happy2BMe


Yup -

All of those SCOTUS libs have homes around DC

Teddy Kennedy has oceanfront property on Hyannisport that would be great for the "common good" - an enviromental museum - with a new energt-producing wind farm right offshore

John Kerry-Heinz also has a little dump there on the water - plus one in Boston - 5-6 more in the US we know of - plus several abroad in countries that lean to Socialism

Why do Teddy & John need all of of that wasted land for themselves?


27 posted on 06/25/2005 11:36:30 AM PDT by devolve (-------------------------------------------------)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: devolve

I agree.......why should only the little people be displaced?

That wind farm off of Hyannisport is definitely beneficial to the community as a whole - why should he be able to stop it? (rhetorical question, we all know why)


28 posted on 06/25/2005 11:41:34 AM PDT by Gabz (My give-a-damn is busted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Gabz; Happy2BMe


 THEY PUT UP A PARKING LOT 








 IN BEHALF OF THE COMMON GOOD 



   -- Now go buy a Joni Mitchell CD or DVD!
29 posted on 06/25/2005 11:51:00 AM PDT by devolve (-------------------------------------------------)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: devolve

That is the furst chuckle I've gotten about this whole situation :) thanks.


30 posted on 06/25/2005 11:52:29 AM PDT by Gabz (My give-a-damn is busted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
Leave the federal law alone, IMHO and have the state laws address it. Not all states allow such takings and no state should.

How would state law stop federal entities like The National Park Service who might want to acquire a little land to help out a favored vendor or to help the Nature Conservancy to condemn a huge swath for a conservation easement? I'll bet they are already salivating at the prospect.

31 posted on 06/25/2005 11:54:45 AM PDT by Colorado Doug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"I believe in State's Rights, but I also believe that there should be a basic set of guidelines that the states can't screw with, for government or (special individual's) private gain, as in this matter"

Where unalienable rights are concerned, both enumerated and non-enumerated, the state should protect it's Citizens from federal infringement. As a fail-safe, the federal government should protect Citizen's rights from infringement by the state. I would propose that as a rule rather than a guideline, if it isn't already the case. It's hard to tell these days.

32 posted on 06/25/2005 11:57:53 AM PDT by Eastbound (Jacked out since 3/31/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tscislaw
What if he refuses? Can he not refuse under the Fifth Amendment?

Indeed he/she may. They need a search warrant for DNA just like blood or even your fingerprints. Probable Cause is still alive (although beaten down).

A few months ago I was staying at a hotel that hosted a lot of local company's managers. Since they have had problems in the past with these managers causing problems if they are out too late, the company started up a cerfew.

To enforce this, they station a (presumably off-duty) police officer in the lobby to get the names of people who come in after a certain time of night.

The cop asked my "may I have your name?" I said "no you may not."

His jaw dropped all the way to the floor. I then told him "as long as you wear that police uniform you are under color of authority. Asking my name is a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments. You do know the Constitution, don't you?"

He was just thunderstruck as I walked away.

They will take me to prison before I surrender to random questions by the police just because they think they can.

33 posted on 06/25/2005 11:59:12 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Durka Durka Durka. Muhammed Jihad Durka.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

How about "...for public use, without just compensation paid at the maximum valuation under the planned usage and the public use verified by 2/3 vote of the relevant state legislature." No eminent domain bill up for vote by the legislature can consider more than one property or property owner at a time. Any property taken will always revert to the original owner for a sum of $1 before it is sold to any other individual or entity."


34 posted on 06/25/2005 12:05:24 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
It is much simpler than that:

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.
35 posted on 06/25/2005 12:05:25 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

...and if the government rents or grants concessions for any purpose to a private enterprise, the rent shall be paid to the original owner(s) at whatever rate the market will bear.

Governments love leasing valuable property to their cronies for $1 a year.


36 posted on 06/25/2005 12:10:33 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: devolve
It's a start. Needs work.

How about forming a corporation, positive like the enviros and one worlders like to form, that would define and protect private property rights, ownership rights of households in the Bourgeois Society? Call it the National Private Property Protection Society. NPPPS. Nip this in the bud. Well, it's a little past the bud state by a few centuries, but should be done. Remember, corporations are the second family.

37 posted on 06/25/2005 12:23:16 PM PDT by RightWhale (withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

I think you may be correct on another plane of the universe. However, your error is assuming that the words and clear meaning of the Constitution have any meaning whatsoever in the USSC's legislative sessions. They do not. It does not matter what the law is, unless it protects THEIR interests.


38 posted on 06/25/2005 12:27:04 PM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

That is treating the symptom, not the disease.

The disease is these Supreme Court Justices have grown accustomed to interpreting anything written in the Constitution to refelct their personal opinions, regardless of what the written word states. The Fifth Amendment as written seem perfectly clear to me.

Obviously, its not to them.


39 posted on 06/25/2005 12:30:12 PM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
not for the value of the current use of the property but for the value of its hightest use

This could easily become a rule. It should be valued in its intended use after the taking. What is the value of a bikepath or park? Zero dollars, by definition of the real estate market except as it affects the value of surrounding parcels. This is a tough one.

40 posted on 06/25/2005 12:36:03 PM PDT by RightWhale (withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson