Why Do Republicans Despise The 5th Amendment?

[The T]

.

I wonder if that stunt has created a precedent where people will launch into a long speech proclaiming their innocence while pleading the fifth.

Pretty ballsy, but she got away with it. And, of course, those who want to protect her think it's just peachy.

.

NO friend...she DIDN'T get away with SQUAT. SHE was held in contempt. In time? SHE will BE in a JAIL CELL wearing Progressive ORANGE.

 

[The T]

In light of the Obama decision to execute American citizens with an "executive order" without due process when they are deemed to be terrorists it's interesting that the radical left would be ignorant of the concept of arrest and due process which includes rights inherent in the 5th Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

OR FOURTH AMENDMENT for that matter. This Government is out of Control. Obama needs to be behind BARS, with his followers/acolytes.

 

[itfitzme]

In light of the Obama decision to execute American citizens with an "executive order" without due process when they are deemed to be terrorists it's interesting that the radical left would be ignorant of the concept of arrest and due process which includes rights inherent in the 5th Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

You seem to be confused. This, from an article in CNN "The killings of two American citizens by a U.S. drone without a judicial process caused considerable outrage on both the left and the right."

I don't think the evidence supports your premise.

 

[itfitzme]

.

I wonder if that stunt has created a precedent where people will launch into a long speech proclaiming their innocence while pleading the fifth.

Pretty ballsy, but she got away with it. And, of course, those who want to protect her think it's just peachy.

.

NO friend...she DIDN'T get away with SQUAT. SHE was held in contempt. In time? SHE will BE in a JAIL CELL wearing Progressive ORANGE.

Oh, you're out of touch with reality

 

[Kosh]

And yet still not one far left poster has shown that they understand the Constitution and that their comments are based on far left programmed talking points and propaganda.

Well, it goes without saying that your statement is a statement of self, lacking in any objective considerations as to be none other.

No where have I seen you presenty any objective knowledge that would present yourself as understanding anything. I get that your programmed talking points now includes the phrase, "programmed talking points." Next you will be using "echo chamber."

I bet I could go through your posts and show every idea, concept, and phrase could be shown to pre date your usage.

And the far left continues to prove that they do not have a clue about the constitution beyond their far left programmed taking points and propaganda given to them by their rich white far left masters.

 

[Kosh]

.

I wonder if that stunt has created a precedent where people will launch into a long speech proclaiming their innocence while pleading the fifth.

Pretty ballsy, but she got away with it. And, of course, those who want to protect her think it's just peachy.

.

NO friend...she DIDN'T get away with SQUAT. SHE was held in contempt. In time? SHE will BE in a JAIL CELL wearing Progressive ORANGE.

Oh, you're out of touch with reality

The irony of those comments!

 

[The T]

.

I wonder if that stunt has created a precedent where people will launch into a long speech proclaiming their innocence while pleading the fifth.

Pretty ballsy, but she got away with it. And, of course, those who want to protect her think it's just peachy.

.

NO friend...she DIDN'T get away with SQUAT. SHE was held in contempt. In time? SHE will BE in a JAIL CELL wearing Progressive ORANGE.

Oh, you're out of touch with reality

THAT, would be YOU SHITSTAIN.

 

[itfitzme]

Why do Democrats (and liberals/progressives) hate the 1st, 2d, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and especially the 10th Amendments?

Why do Republicans (and conservatives) group the world into two kind of people and call everyone that disagrees with them a Democrat(and liberal/progressive)?

Why do the use progressive and Democrat intechangably?

There are two kinds of people, those that group people into two groups and those that don't.

Because there is a definite schism. People who self-identify as democrat/progressive/liberal and those who don't. Of course, those who self-identify as d/p/l also tend to group others into an opposing group they identify as GOP or Tea Party.

Liberals (people who prefer big government control of the "other guys" lives) and GOP (people who don't agree with them).

What's odd is that when self identification is plotted against actual policies, there is considerable overlap with self identifying of both groups going all the way over to policy choices that are absolutely opposite their groups extreme.


Oh, btw, if you know anything about people, you know that your statement is equally true of self identifying repubs.

It makes the concept of the groups a) not a real thing and b) you're exactly the same.

 

[itfitzme]

NO friend...she DIDN'T get away with SQUAT. SHE was held in contempt. In time? SHE will BE in a JAIL CELL wearing Progressive ORANGE.

Oh, you're out of touch with reality

THAT, would be YOU SHITSTAIN.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[The T]

NO friend...she DIDN'T get away with SQUAT. SHE was held in contempt. In time? SHE will BE in a JAIL CELL wearing Progressive ORANGE.

Oh, you're out of touch with reality

The irony of those comments!

Isn't it though? The Constitution is just dried parchment and has NO meaning but nevermind the BASE of ALL LAW in the United States. Ifit'sME better enjoy the rep because in 48 hours I intend on REVOKING IT with Clear purpose and RELISH.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Why do Republicans (and conservatives) group the world into two kind of people and call everyone that disagrees with them a Democrat(and liberal/progressive)?

Why do the use progressive and Democrat intechangably?

There are two kinds of people, those that group people into two groups and those that don't.

Because there is a definite schism. People who self-identify as democrat/progressive/liberal and those who don't. Of course, those who self-identify as d/p/l also tend to group others into an opposing group they identify as GOP or Tea Party.

Liberals (people who prefer big government control of the "other guys" lives) and GOP (people who don't agree with them).

What's odd is that when self identification is plotted against actual policies, there is considerable overlap with self identifying of both groups going all the way over to policy choices that are absolutely opposite their groups extreme.


Oh, btw, if you know anything about people, you know that your statement is equally true of self identifying repubs.

It makes the concept of the groups a) not a real thing and b) you're exactly the same.

While individuals from either group may support ideas that overlap, on many important issues, there is a definite schism. You can observe that schism on this forum, every day. Even when someone perceived as being from the "other side" expresses an opinion not generally held by his group but supportive of the other, the opposition will decry that individual as disingenuous, at the very least.
So, while individuals may, in fact, be supportive of ideas not in alignment with their group's ideology, many are hesitant to express those thoughts because they have no wish to experience the censure of either group.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In light of the Obama decision to execute American citizens with an "executive order" without due process when they are deemed to be terrorists it's interesting that the radical left would be ignorant of the concept of arrest and due process which includes rights inherent in the 5th Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

You seem to be confused. This, from an article in CNN "The killings of two American citizens by a U.S. drone without a judicial process caused considerable outrage on both the left and the right."

I don't think the evidence supports your premise.

whitehall doesn't have premises, it has talking points

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why Do Republicans Despise The 5th Amendment?]

Headline:
Crazy Wingnut Steve Stockman Wants To Send The Cops To Arrest Lois Lerner

To Steve Stockman, invoking Fifth Amendment protection is now a crime.

"Right Wing Watch reports, Stockman is a birther who rewarded Ted Nugent with a ticket to the State of the Union after he threatened the life of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Last month, Stockman suggested Obama is a secret Muslim and terrorist sympathizer."

---

It is amazing people who go around screaming about the US Constitution and rights and amendments have such a despicable level of disrespect for ALL of the USC.

Again: Why Do Republicans Despise The 5th Amendment?]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I thought so.

oh well

carry on

 

[Contumacious]

Why Do Republicans Despise The 5th Amendment?]

Headline:
Crazy Wingnut Steve Stockman Wants To Send The Cops To Arrest Lois Lerner

To Steve Stockman, invoking Fifth Amendment protection is now a crime.

"Right Wing Watch reports, Stockman is a birther who rewarded Ted Nugent with a ticket to the State of the Union after he threatened the life of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Last month, Stockman suggested Obama is a secret Muslim and terrorist sympathizer."

---

It is amazing people who go around screaming about the US Constitution and rights and amendments have such a despicable level of disrespect for ALL of the USC.

Interesting point of view.

But if an individual refuses to sign a 1040 based on Fifth Amendment grounds federal judges can ignore their objections because the federal government needs to feed, insure and quench Dante's thirst.

.

Where in the whacky world of wingnut wizardry do you get statements like the one above?

Refusing to pay taxes based on what amendment? And the 5th Amendment creates a number of rights relevant to both criminal and civil legal proceedings.

The fact is that BOTH PARTIES hate the Constitution


Catch 22 – Form 1040 and the Fifth Amendment

"Of course, it’s easy for the Court to say we have a free choice not to give information on a return, but if you don’t file a return you could end up in jail for ‘willful failure to file.” If you put something like “5th Amendment” in any space where information is supposed to go, you will be charged with filing a frivolous return. Happily, the Courts have also found that even if you don’t properly assert the privilege, having asserted it is a defense against failure to file.".

.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

1. Gains from illicit traffic in liquor are subject to the income tax. P. 274 U. S. 263.

2. The Fifth Amendment does not protect the recipient of such income from prosecution for willful refusal to make any return under the income tax law. P. 274 U. S. 263.

3. If disclosures called for by the return are privileged by the Amendment, the privilege should be claimed in the return. P. 274 U. S. 264.

Justice Holmes:

As the defendant's income was taxed, the statute, of course, required a return. See United States v. Sischo, 262 U. S. 165. In the decision that this was contrary to the Constitution, we are of opinion that the protection of the Fifth Amendment was pressed too far. If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making, he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all. We are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld. Most of the items warranted no complaint. It would be an extreme, if not an extravagant, application [MENTION=20503]Contumacious[/MENTION] you can't keep cherry picking pieces of decisions and rulings from lower courts to make statements as absolutes

Interesting point of view.

But if an individual refuses to sign a 1040 based on Fifth Amendment grounds federal judges can ignore their objections because the federal government needs to feed, insure and quench Dante's thirst.

.

Where in the whacky world of wingnut wizardry do you get statements like the one above?

Refusing to pay taxes based on what amendment? And the 5th Amendment creates a number of rights relevant to both criminal and civil legal proceedings.

The fact is that BOTH PARTIES hate the Constitution


Catch 22 – Form 1040 and the Fifth Amendment

"Of course, it’s easy for the Court to say we have a free choice not to give information on a return, but if you don’t file a return you could end up in jail for ‘willful failure to file.” If you put something like “5th Amendment” in any space where information is supposed to go, you will be charged with filing a frivolous return. Happily, the Courts have also found that even if you don’t properly assert the privilege, having asserted it is a defense against failure to file.".

.

you forgot:

So the question is, “How can you sign a form 1040 tax return without waiving your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination?”

The short answer is, “You can’t.”

The longer answer, and ideas about how to assert your rights without going to jail, can be found in an E-book by Mr. William Conklin. You can download the e-book free from the link below:

some idiot is selling a book. try using that book at your criminal trial

 

[chikenwing]

'
Particularly ignorant is this inane notion that to invoke one's right to not self-incriminate means one is 'guilty.'
Logic isn't one of your strong points is it.

Its rather ignorant to think they are not. You can't incriminate ones self unless you have don something to incriminate ones self.

 

[Anathema]

Maybe some of us on the Right are just more interested in JUSTICE (that is, the punishment of the Guilty, no matter what it takes to get there) rather than the legal mumbo-jumbo that the Left is so interested in.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=48761]Anathema[/MENTION]

Maybe some of us on the Right are just more interested in JUSTICE (that is, the punishment of the Guilty, no matter what it takes to get there) rather than the legal mumbo-jumbo that the Left is so interested in.

Justice means 'punishment of the guilty'?????????????

Now you sound like a populist minority screaming "No justice, no peace!"

 

[OriginalShroom]

Why is it that the far left does not understand the Constitution?

No shit. And the right too.

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

How hard is that to get. Seems like every one wants to add things they want to it. Or pick and choose.

She was testifying before Congress about how she did her Government job. She wasn't in front of a Judge or on trial.

HUGE difference.