Why Do Republicans Despise The 5th Amendment?

[itfitzme]

I'm sure when the next Republican administration allegedly uses the I.R.S. to go after it's political opponents and a key figure in that takes the fifth and then makes a statement proclaiming they did nothing wrong the left will be just as supportive of that as they are now.

I found an article on The Blaze titled "I Have the Smoking Gun in Obama’s IRS Scandal". I read it and I don't see where he presents any smoking gun. It's all wild specutation.

All i could find.

What do you have?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You forgot to mention that the duly constituted House of Representatives found that Lois Lerner waived her 5th amendments rights by testifying and that such finding is back up by Federal Case Law.

Perhaps your post was just for the Low Information Left Wing Loon.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

That's for a judge to decide during a hearing pursuant to the 5th Amendment right to due process, not House republicans in the role as prosecutors, and certainly not ignorant partisan rightists on an internet message board.

And until such time as a judge makes a ruling, Lerner in fact cannot be compelled to self-incriminate.

 

[The Rabbi]

[MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION]

probably something to do with the US Constitution?

The US constitution supports the idea of a federal government unresponsive to the people? Who knew??

The Congress isn't part of the federal gov't and you renounce citizenship when you go work for it? Who knew??

And, yeah, last I looked, the Constitution restricts (not responsive) the federal government regardless . That's the whole point, right?

Or have you heard differently?

Was that suppoed to be some kind of response? It wasn't.

Lerner works ultimately for the People of the U.S. The Congress is it's duly elected representative, the House being the more representative body in the government. They provide funding to run the executive branch. They in effect sign the paychecks.
So to have an employee plead the fifth and refuse to answer questions in a Congressional inquiiry is a giant slap in the face to the American people. Since you have contempt for Americans you dont really mind.

 

[The Rabbi]

You forgot to mention that the duly constituted House of Representatives found that Lois Lerner waived her 5th amendments rights by testifying and that such finding is back up by Federal Case Law.

Perhaps your post was just for the Low Information Left Wing Loon.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

That's for a judge to decide during a hearing pursuant to the 5th Amendment right to due process, not House republicans in the role as prosecutors, and certainly not ignorant partisan rightists on an internet message board.

And until such time as a judge makes a ruling, Lerner in fact cannot be compelled to self-incriminate.

Wrong. Lerner can be jailed by Congress for contempt. No judge need be involved.

 

[Darkwind]

Particularly ignorant is this inane notion that to invoke one's right to not self-incriminate means one is 'guilty.'

When in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

The purpose of this provision of the 5th Amendment was to safeguard the doctrine of presumption of innocence and place the burden solely on the state to prove the guilt of the accused.

Incorrect, as usual.

The 5th does not absolve someone of guilt, nor does it admit to guilt.

It simply gives protection to the citizen the right to not give testimony that may or may not incriminate them.

It is wholly neutral and does not burden others from inferring innocence or guilt.

 

[francoHFW]

The IRS scandal is phony, the Pubs in the House are a joke as bad as the brainwashed dupes and don't deserve any more ammunition for them to spin into absolute lies....The 5th doesn't mean you can't say you're innocent.

 

[Dante]

I'm sure when the next Republican administration allegedly uses the I.R.S. to go after it's political opponents and a key figure in that takes the fifth and then makes a statement proclaiming they did nothing wrong the left will be just as supportive of that as they are now.

allegedly? why wouldn't fair minded people do so?

 

[itfitzme]

I'm sure when the next Republican administration allegedly uses the I.R.S. to go after it's political opponents and a key figure in that takes the fifth and then makes a statement proclaiming they did nothing wrong the left will be just as supportive of that as they are now.

Really, what have you heard. I didn't catch that news story. What paper broke that story? Did they uncover some document? No shit This is big. You have to post it

You really think when no one gets held accountable for this I.R.S. scandal which unless something changes they won't the next Republican administration won't try and exact some revenge? Political pay back is as old as politics it's self right up there with hypocrisy.

That's not an answer. That's a supposition abou twhat I think. If it's all the same to you, I'll let you speak for you and I'll speak for myself.

So, back to the question, what have you heard? I love this shit, watching them get busted. So far, I haven't seen it.

I can conclude, from your response, that your the, "But Billy did it too" kinda person? You know what confirmation bias means, don't you? Here's a tidbit of psychology...alcoholics think everey one drinks. Drug addicts, wife beaters, child abusers...they all have one thing common..they all think that the other guy does. Heck, it's just human nature.

So I just gotta wonder when a person expresses an assumption is....well, you know what I'm saying.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why Do Republicans Despise The 5th Amendment?

It's about republicans who despise the president, the 5th Amendment is just an innocent victim that got in the way of their hate.

 

[itfitzme]

Particularly ignorant is this inane notion that to invoke one's right to not self-incriminate means one is 'guilty.'

When in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

The purpose of this provision of the 5th Amendment was to safeguard the doctrine of presumption of innocence and place the burden solely on the state to prove the guilt of the accused.

Incorrect, as usual.

The 5th does not absolve someone of guilt, nor does it admit to guilt.

It simply gives protection to the citizen the right to not give testimony that may or may not incriminate them.

It is wholly neutral and does not burden others from inferring innocence or guilt.

"The 5th does not absolve someone of guilt, nor does it admit to guilt."

Do you even read what is written? Your reply is like not even in the same side of the fence as "presumption of innocence".

It's like you caught the ball then ran the wrong way down field.

What the ****? Is English a second language for you, cuz that might explain it.


You do understand our legal system, right? "Innocent until proven guilty" and "found not guilty". No one is ever found innocent. Before and after trial, unless proven guilty, they are presumed innocent. It never absolves anyone of guilt, ever (unless is found guilt of the crime). Nobody said it did. But it isn't neutral. It is very specific. Presumed innocent. Then found guilty or found not guilty. Never found innocent, never...

 

[Darkwind]

Particularly ignorant is this inane notion that to invoke one's right to not self-incriminate means one is 'guilty.'

When in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

The purpose of this provision of the 5th Amendment was to safeguard the doctrine of presumption of innocence and place the burden solely on the state to prove the guilt of the accused.

Incorrect, as usual.

The 5th does not absolve someone of guilt, nor does it admit to guilt.

It simply gives protection to the citizen the right to not give testimony that may or may not incriminate them.

It is wholly neutral and does not burden others from inferring innocence or guilt.

"The 5th does not absolve someone of guilt, nor does it admit to guilt."

Do you even read what is written? Your reply is like not even in the same side of the fence as "presumption of innocence".

It's like you caught the ball then ran the wrong way down field.

What the ****? Is English a second language for you, cuz that might explain it.

I would have to ask you the same thing. Then I would have to ask if you have any ability to reason at all.

The presumption of innocence is dealt with elsewhere. Do you even know what the 5th Amendment says?

 

[itfitzme]

The IRS scandal is phony, the Pubs in the House are a joke as bad as the brainwashed dupes and don't deserve any more ammunition for them to spin into absolute lies....The 5th doesn't mean you can't say you're innocent.

I like that last part. I mean like duh! That would be complete nonsense. You gotta have a reality filter. Somethings are just absurd.

 

[itfitzme]

Incorrect, as usual.

The 5th does not absolve someone of guilt, nor does it admit to guilt.

It simply gives protection to the citizen the right to not give testimony that may or may not incriminate them.

It is wholly neutral and does not burden others from inferring innocence or guilt.

"The 5th does not absolve someone of guilt, nor does it admit to guilt."

Do you even read what is written? Your reply is like not even in the same side of the fence as "presumption of innocence".

It's like you caught the ball then ran the wrong way down field.

What the ****? Is English a second language for you, cuz that might explain it.

I would have to ask you the same thing. Then I would have to ask if you have any ability to reason at all.

The presumption of innocence is dealt with elsewhere. Do you even know what the 5th Amendment says?

Yeah, I posted it.

And as the thread has gone, unless you are creating strawmen to make an argument, no one said, "absolves someones guilt".

And unless you're a dickish law graduate or have an ego the size of a watermelon that just has to be stroked or it'll deflate, it isn't unreasonable to see how the Miranda rights follow from the 5th amendment . Do they follow from some other amendment oh exhaulted one? Is there some other document we use as a basis?

Do tell, oh great legal mind. How does the entire legal system follow. Don't spare the details. Be sure to site every legal prescience. We'll e sure to read all 100 volumes. You might have to take a sabatical from teaching at Harvard.
.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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).

 

[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.

 

[itfitzme]

This is interesting

Lord Hale (1678) says:

"In some cases, presumptive evidence goes far to prove a person guilty, though there be no express proof of the fact to be committed by him; but then it must be very warily pressed, for it is better five guilty persons should escape unpunished than one innocent person should die."

2 Hale P.C. 290. He further observes:

"And thus the reasons stand on both sides, and though these seem to be stronger than the former, yet in a case of this moment, it is safest to hold that in practice, which hath least doubt and danger,*quod dubitas, ne feceris."

1 Hale P.C. 24.

Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." 2 Bl.Com. c. 27, margin p. 358*ad finem.

How fully the presumption of innocence had been evolved as a principle and applied at common law is shown inMcKinley's Case*(1817), 33 St.Tr. 275, 506, where Lord Gillies says:..


*I conceive that this presumption is to be found in every code of law which has reason and religion and humanity for a foundation. It is a maxim which ought to be inscribed in indelible characters in the heart of every judge and juryman, and I was happy to hear from Lord Hermand he is inclined to give full effect to it.

the fact that the presumption of innocence is so elementary that instances of denial to charge it upon request have rarely occurred....

.

Yada yada yada. It is a long and detailed examination of the history of the presumption of innocence. The gist of it is that the presumption of innocence predates the Constitution and is so axiomatic that it has been applied without question in all legal cases.

This becomes a bit problematic for the question here because if it both predates the Constitution and was taken by the founders as so obviously apparent as to go without saying, then one may easily conclude that it is embodied in the Constitution as surely as it was embodied in the hearts of every signatory.

It is, in fact, understood by this case, as being an axiom from which the 5th amendment relies.


Huh..interesting. That's what I could find.



Coffin v. United States - 156 U.S. 432 (1895) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

 

[itfitzme]

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.

 

[Kosh]

And the far left just drones on with their talking points and propaganda and continues to show they do not understand the Constitution.

 

[itfitzme]

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.

 

[whitehall]

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.