Article [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.
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;
This portion only applies to those accused of a capital or otherwise infamous crime. Does not apply to Terri.
nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
Terri has twice (now thrice) been put in jeopardy of life for the offence of failing to specifically request in writing the retention of her Constitutional right to live.
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;
Terri has been deprived of liberty and property, and the court has ordered that she be deprived of life, without due process of law.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Terri's property has been taken without just compensation, to pay for years of legal procedings. If the money received by the court exceeds the costs incurred, then her money was taken for public use.
Have the lawyers argued the case for "clear and convincing evidence" as far as Terri's wishes? This went to 3 different state supreme courts and the USSC once that I know of. In only one case (Quinlan) did they elect to remove life device, her breathing tube, and never any feeding tubes.
Notice the excerpt about the breathing tube by the NJSC. They were even wrong about that because she lived another 10 years.
Wendland, California Supreme Court
martin, Michigan Supreme Court
Cruzan, United States Supreme Court
Quinlan, New Jersey Supreme Court
"Her life accordingly is sustained by the respirator and tubal feeding, and removal from the respirator would cause her death soon, although the time cannot be stated with more precision." NJSC
