Why Do Republicans Despise The 5th Amendment?

[Anathema]

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

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

JUSTICE means 100% of the Guilty are punished, even if that means some percentageof the not guilty are as well.

Not at all. Screaming is a waste of time. I'll give you an example..... If I ever find the SOB who assaulted my wife when she was 13 years old and has never paid for it, He'll get his punishment, with interest, from the barrel of one of my guns.

 

[Contumacious]

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

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

Exactly.


BOTH political parties ignore the FIFTH.

.

 

[Dante]

[MENTION=48761]Anathema[/MENTION]

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

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

JUSTICE means 100% of the Guilty are punished, even if that means some percentageof the not guilty are as well.

Not at all. Screaming is a waste of time. I'll give you an example..... If I ever find the SOB who assaulted my wife when she was 13 years old and has never paid for it, He'll get his punishment, with interest, from the barrel of one of my guns.

I guess you're clueless about Western/American concepts of justice in a republic?

you must be an alien.

 

[Dante]

[MENTION=20503]Contumacious[/MENTION]

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

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

Exactly.


BOTH political parties ignore the FIFTH.

.

Political parties ignore the 5th? You mean people in both political parties ignore the 5th. and of course you can't say ALL the people in ALL/Both political parties ignore the 5th and be taken seriously, can you?

 

[Borillar]

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.

The only amendment wingnuts care about is the 2nd amendment, and only the second half of that one.

 

[Freewill]

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.

Got to love it when the left wing speaks for anyone other then themselves.

I don't know why or even if the right wing hates the 5th, don't imagine they do. But we really know why, out of the whole Constitution the 5th is the left wings favorite.

 

[JFK_USA]

When you invoke the 5th you have to shut up. You don't have to speak after that. That puts the burden of proof on the Prosecution and shields you from self incrimination.

But you can't Invoke the 5th, talk a little, invoke the 5th, talk some more then invoke the 5th (which is what she did). It doesn't work that way.

When you start talking, especially before Congress, you've waived your 5th amendment rights.

You can't just turn them on and off as you please.

And so because of that she's being Arrested for Contempt.

You can invoke your 5th Amendment rights 10 times in a row or a hundred. But when you open your mouth the next time and start talking, you've waived your rights. All the previous times now go out the window.

No. Case law disagrees. You can answer other questions but if a question comes up that you don't want to answer, you can plead the 5th. Because that's your right. Just because you make an opening statement doesn't mean she must be compelled against her will to self incriminate herself.

 

[Contumacious]

[MENTION=20503]Contumacious[/MENTION]

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

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

Exactly.


BOTH political parties ignore the FIFTH.

.

Political parties ignore the 5th? You mean people in both political parties ignore the 5th. and of course you can't say ALL the people in ALL/Both political parties ignore the 5th and be taken seriously, can you?

 

[Dante]

When you invoke the 5th you have to shut up. You don't have to speak after that. That puts the burden of proof on the Prosecution and shields you from self incrimination.

But you can't Invoke the 5th, talk a little, invoke the 5th, talk some more then invoke the 5th (which is what she did). It doesn't work that way.

When you start talking, especially before Congress, you've waived your 5th amendment rights.

You can't just turn them on and off as you please.

And so because of that she's being Arrested for Contempt.

You can invoke your 5th Amendment rights 10 times in a row or a hundred. But when you open your mouth the next time and start talking, you've waived your rights. All the previous times now go out the window.

No. Case law disagrees. You can answer other questions but if a question comes up that you don't want to answer, you can plead the 5th. Because that's your right. Just because you make an opening statement doesn't mean she must be compelled against her will to self incriminate herself.

bingo!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

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

Exactly.


BOTH political parties ignore the FIFTH.

.

Nonsense.

No one is 'ignoring' the 5th Amendment.

As is the case with the rest of the Constitution, the 5th Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by Federal courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.

And the case law is clear and specific that Lerner in fact did not 'waive' her right to not self-incriminate:

The Supreme Court thus distinguished its holding in an earlier case, in which it had specifically held that “where the previous disclosure by an ordinary witness is not an
actual admission of guilt or incriminating facts, he is not deprived of the privilege of
stopping short in his testimony whenever it may fairly tend to incriminate him.”
McCarthy v. Arndstein, 262 U.S. 355, 359 (1923). Indeed, the Court specifically
cited with approval the holding of the highest court of New York that “a witness by
answering questions exonerating himself in general terms from all connection with a
criminal transaction” – precisely as Lois Lerner did before this Committee – “does
not thereby waive his right to remain silent” as to additional questions that might
tend to incriminate him with respect to that same matter. Id. at 359 (citing People v. Forbes, 143 N.Y. 219).

[Lerner] did not admit [to] anything incriminating,[]but instead made a general denial of any wrongdoing at all.

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/uploads/Combined Expert Statements on Waiver.pdf

Consequently, in accordance with 5th Amendment jurisprudence, Lerner retains the right to remain silent, where the Constitution is not being 'ignored.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When you invoke the 5th you have to shut up. You don't have to speak after that. That puts the burden of proof on the Prosecution and shields you from self incrimination.

But you can't Invoke the 5th, talk a little, invoke the 5th, talk some more then invoke the 5th (which is what she did). It doesn't work that way.

When you start talking, especially before Congress, you've waived your 5th amendment rights.

You can't just turn them on and off as you please.

And so because of that she's being Arrested for Contempt.

You can invoke your 5th Amendment rights 10 times in a row or a hundred. But when you open your mouth the next time and start talking, you've waived your rights. All the previous times now go out the window.

Incorrect.

See post #90

 

[Anathema]

I guess you're clueless about Western/American concepts of justice in a republic?

Not at all. I simply realize they are useless, worthless, and proven to fail miserably as seen in this country on a daily basis.

 

[Jarlaxle]

[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!"

No, he's just an insane, psychotic kookburger who should probably be locked up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Most of you on the right are interested in partisan politics, not 'justice,' you're only interested in attacking the president, no matter what it takes to get you there, including ignoring the rule of law.

 

[Anathema]

Most of you on the right are interested in partisan politics, not 'justice,' you're only interested in attacking the president, no matter what it takes to get you there, including ignoring the rule of law.

Despite having been born here and lived here my entire life, I have no President, no Government, and no Nation. The Nation and Government I belong to have been dead for a century and a half. I am a man without a country and always have been.

This country hasn't been interested in the Rule of Law since Lincoln was elected. What people like me want IS Rule of Law..... where nobody is above the Law. Not even the POTUS.

 

[Dante]

I guess you're clueless about Western/American concepts of justice in a republic?

Not at all. I simply realize they are useless, worthless, and proven to fail miserably as seen in this country on a daily basis.

yet the republic stands

next

 

[Anathema]

yet the republic stands

Not at all. The Republic sits like an old man in a wheelchair he isn't even strong enough to push forward, babbling on about the Olde Days despite nobody wanting to listen as they all wait hopefully for him to finally due so they can be rid of his nuisance.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Why not off yourself & put us out of your misery, then?

 

[Pete7469]

Why do bed wetters despise the 2nd?

 

[Pete7469]

Why not off yourself & put us out of your misery, then?

I'm sure there was abortion available. Why didn't more moonbats take advantage of it 40 years ago and save the rest of so much trouble?