YoursTruly
Platinum Member
- Dec 21, 2019
- 8,874
- 5,505
- 940
The 5th: “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 [sic] 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.”
The entire Amendment is deals with the governments authority over suspected criminals. From start to finish. So the question begs, why would they change the subject in the last sentence? "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
IMO, they didn't change the subject. Also IMO, they're still talking about suspected criminals.
Example: Let's say a person is pulled over in his vehicle and goes to jail for expired license, no insurance and out of date registration. The vehicle is impounded. By the time he gets out, he owes for the tow and storage, more than he can afford. So the government keeps the vehicle until they can sell it at the auction.
IMO, the government owes the driver the blue book value of the vehicle. Not the auction selling price. Nor does the drive owe the towing company or the storage fee's.
There are other, even better examples of how the 5th is being abused. Like the eminent domain being used on our southern borders for right of way for the border wall.
One better example of this would be gas/oil pipelines going through unwilling land owners property. For one reason, the gas/oil and the pipeline isn't for public use. They're private companies, who own the product flowing through the pipeline. Although it's sold to the public, it's still private transactions from the company to the person(s) buying it. "Public use" would be something like a park or a roadway, that is accessible for everyone in the general public. When I buy gas from the gas station, it becomes my private property.
The entire Amendment is deals with the governments authority over suspected criminals. From start to finish. So the question begs, why would they change the subject in the last sentence? "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
IMO, they didn't change the subject. Also IMO, they're still talking about suspected criminals.
Example: Let's say a person is pulled over in his vehicle and goes to jail for expired license, no insurance and out of date registration. The vehicle is impounded. By the time he gets out, he owes for the tow and storage, more than he can afford. So the government keeps the vehicle until they can sell it at the auction.
IMO, the government owes the driver the blue book value of the vehicle. Not the auction selling price. Nor does the drive owe the towing company or the storage fee's.
There are other, even better examples of how the 5th is being abused. Like the eminent domain being used on our southern borders for right of way for the border wall.
One better example of this would be gas/oil pipelines going through unwilling land owners property. For one reason, the gas/oil and the pipeline isn't for public use. They're private companies, who own the product flowing through the pipeline. Although it's sold to the public, it's still private transactions from the company to the person(s) buying it. "Public use" would be something like a park or a roadway, that is accessible for everyone in the general public. When I buy gas from the gas station, it becomes my private property.
