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.
Fact is, we have some fairly murky ideas of the nature of property.
I like it. It's too bad it needs that clarification.
Leave the federal law alone, IMHO and have the state laws address it. Not all states allow such takings and no state should.
So, doesn't using a suspect's DNA to connect him to a crime fall under this clause?
No it isn't. It's broad enough that the leftist courts will spend centuries trying to define it away. In the end they will declare the government as the property owner (because doesn't everything come from the all knowing and beneficent government?), but until then, the conventional notion will be taken as the first interpretation.
In the meantime we can concentrate on getting rid of the leftists. On that note, I vote for deporting them to China.
Don't mess with the Constitution, impeach the judges.
The awfulness of this ruling is 5 bastards took the word "public" and changed it to mean "private developers."
The problem with that is inherent in the nature and purpose of the federal system. When the various states begin to act in such ways as to bring a disparity of commerce into the national economy, the Fed Gov is required to act to bring uniformity to the country. Thus, if one state does not allow taking for economic development but a neighboring state does, and if this results in impairment to commerce, the Fed Gov can overrule the states.
If the "state" issues you a clear title and deed to property- and you have gone thru a professional "title search" - and you have purchased "title insurance" - the "state" has no bloody (if they step on my property) right to confiscate it.
If they attempt to do so - they will forfeit their all and any of their "property".
After all - their "property" - has a "murky" nature and history.
Remember that when some oppressed illegal alien carjacks your SUV.
As for SCOTUS - I*d recomend that all of the five liberals review the insurance on all of their "property".
BTTT for later - thank you for the PING.
I think he's right. I do support the changing of the Fifth Ammendment in this manner.
While I don't want the U.S. Constitution 'infringing', it is an important document when it comes to guarantees.
In your scenario (which you aluded to), you think the states should take care of this. What if say, seven states don't?
The federal document would make that impossible.
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.
No more than fingerprints. DNA is evidence, not compelled testimony. It is just sure-fire.
I always think how ironic it was that the case that brought DNA to the forefront was the only case (near as I can tell) that didn't make it a lock (OJ).
5th Amendment BUMP.
Get a rope!
Ok, so DNA left at the scene of a crime is indeed evidence. But..you've got to tie the DNA to the suspect.
In order to do that the suspect must supply a DNA sample, either willingly or forced. What if he refuses? Can he not refuse under the Fifth Amendment?
Providing DNA is tantamount to testifying against oneself, in my opinion.
The federal BOR is a bare minimum. The states are free to grant additional rights. Freedom from takings is well within the reach of the states to secure for their residents.
I have updated my FMCDH (From My Cold Dead Hands) sign-off with the addition of (BITS).....Blood In The Streets, which I foresee coming soon, due to the enormous increase of the Marxist progressive movement being shoved down the throat of this failing REPUBLIC through the Judicial tyranny of fiat law, the passing of unconstitutional laws by the Legislative and Executive branches of our government and the enormous tax burden placed upon the average American to support unconstitutional programs put forth by Marxist ideology.
I do not advocate revolution. I only think of what I foresee.
FMCDH(BITS)
So if you own the a piece of right in the middle of a planned runway and don't want to sell, you could stop the whole project? I could imagine Green Peace buying up strategic pieces of property just to stop various projects. They tried and failed to to this to stop new electrical transmission lines from being built, but the federal courts prevented them from blocking the construction. Eminent domain is used precisely because some property owners don't want to sell. I object to the Supreme Court ruling that defines "public use" so broadly that any piece of property can be confiscated so it can be sold to other private interests that can make it more valuable and generate a higher tax base. I think the owner of the property should be paid not for the value of the current use of the property but for the value of its hightest use.
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.