Does Pleading the 5th only work for criminals?
Does pleading the 5th Amendment only apply to criminals? Can American homeowners and property owners not plead the 5th effectively? It would appear not.
It looks like homeowners nationwide have the (mostly) liberal judges to thank for having our homes taken from us if our city or state officials get a greedy (or even well-meaning but misguided) gleam in their eye and our homes are in the way of their plans.
The very small majority of judges in the highest court of our land have ruled that our personal right to private property is overruled by the ‘public’ right to possible higher revenue…or anything else deemed for the ‘public good’ by public officials; who, I will add, are not the ones losing their homes here- nor are the judges who made the ruling.
I’m pretty sure that the authors of the Bill of Rights had them added to the Constitution to protect citizens from this very type of thing, and not for public officials to have the right to grab land using loopholes or poorly interpreted phrases from it. The main reason for the Bill of Rights was that the people be given the rights and the government be limited.
It’s not the Bush administration here that is grabbing land or even okaying it; it’s known liberal judges whose idea of the Constitution seems to be that it was written to limit people’s rights rather than limit government power. While liberals, moderates and even many conservatives are decrying the Patriot Act, the Supreme Court is chipping away at our personal rights that are supposed to be guaranteed in the very document they are using to take them away.
It’s well past time to wake up and let our legislators know we want judges in the Supreme Court who will uphold the rights of the people as our Constitution was meant to do, rather than use it to take away our rights. The judges’ ruling histories need to be examined in this light and then the judges voted on accordingly.
In the meantime, we’d better look to our own states to see that their powers are limited regarding the ability to remove our personal rights and we need to take appropriate preventive measures that ensure this.
Hopefully the people of Connecticut get an initiative going that will limit their state’s powers back to what they should be regarding this issue.
Pleading the 5th Amendment should work at least as well if not better for law-abiding citizens than it does for criminals.
Lefty Says: June 23rd, 2005 at 10:52 pm
Joy, I agree and I was outraged when I read about this yesterday. I have seen many people try to stand up to the powers that be in similar cases. I have only seen the rich succeed. If you don’t have money and political clout, you are SOL in this country. I don’t understand why we give all of the power to the super rich. I don’t think there are a lot of “liberal judges” out there. I fear that the label of liberal judge, liberal media, or elite smart people etc is being used dishonestly for everyone that conservatives disagree with - period. It is a worn-out rhetorical trick that people use to dismiss anything they don’t want really examine. But it is effective as a rhetorical trick that fools the masses, I must admit.
On a related note, I just received this alert from FactCheck.org (a non-partisan fact checking organization). The Bush administration has already produced an attack ad against the Democrats for being critical of Bush’s supreme court nominee. Check it out.
A pro-Bush group fired the opening salvo they call it “a warning shot” in what threatens to become a multi-million dollar advertising and public relations campaign over a possible Bush appointment to the Supreme Court. The ad predicts “Democrats will attack anyone the President nominates,” saying that ” a Supreme Court nominee deserves real consideration, instead of instant attacks.”
But this ad itself is an attack that goes beyond “instant” it was launched without waiting for Bush to name a replacement for the ailing Justice William Rehnquist, or even for Rehnquist to say publicly whether or not he will retire as he is reported to be considering. And whether or not Democrats will criticize “anyone” Bush names can’t be known for sure at this point it may or may not turn out to be true.
To support its case, the ad cites editorial blurbs from Republican newspapers criticizing Democrats over their treatment of Supreme Court nominees in the past. But the ad fails to note that the blurbs were about the Robert Bork nomination fight that happened nearly 18 years ago.
Andrew Says: June 23rd, 2005 at 11:13 pm
I’ve always belived in utility as one of the highest functious of government. The Greatest good for the greatest amount of people is a principal that demands efficiency and social advancement. At the same time this ideal may do harm to a select few. I’ve always believed in utility as one of the highest functions of government. The greatest good for the greatest amount of people is a principal that demands efficiency and social advancement. At the same time this ideal may do harm to a select few. Since the few in this case will be reimbursed at market value I dont see much of a problem. I support this ruling only if the wording of it limits its use. I feel the government should only take land out of necessity and only for government use. The danger of this ruling comes from the fact that land can be taken for private use. This means Wal-Mart could petition city government and bribe officials with campaign donations to take your house. I see a huge danger with this.
ken karish Says: June 24th, 2005 at 1:24 am
well it will have to go to congress and hopefuly will shot down with a quick vote..
and if not i would think they had missed the memo where every other household has a weapon in it and thats the only thing that realy keeps us free..
joy Says: June 24th, 2005 at 5:28 pm
Lefty,
I don’t throw around ‘liberal’ as a political catchall to those who don’t agree with President Bush. I don’t agree with him on many things, but I’m not a liberal. “Liberal” in this case refers to thier voting record history. There are also a couple of liberal judges who dissent this ruling.
Regarding this Supreme Court ruling, it is an outrage that the small majority in the Supreme Court would take the side of the greedy rather than the homeowner. The neighborhood in question is not blighted, it’s just in the way of greed.
Regarding your statement about the rich succeeding, I guess that depends on the definition of success. In this case, I hope the overreaching hands of the officials in Connecticut are put back where they belong by the people of Connecticut. Rather than this wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing ‘public good’ useage, the officials should be upholding and defending the Constitutional rights of the citizens.
Regarding comment # 2, Andrew, are you saying that you think this ruling is Constitutional in that these people will receive “just compensation”? Before I comment further on that aspect, I want to understand what it is you are saying.
The homes of these people are in the way of private business plans, not public necessity, correct? In a case like this it is never in the best interest of the public to take away individual rights and freedoms.
joy Says: June 24th, 2005 at 11:13 pm
Lefty-
I despise politics. I didn’t know about the ads. My opinions are not based on politics, but on facts from direct sources as much as possible and my own research when only partial views are given or represented.
Therefore, I did not base my opinion of what types of judges we need appointed on any ads or misrepresentation or another’s opinions; but base them on what I perceive as the purpose of the Constitution-that is to protect the right of the individual American and not government officials’ abuse of it. Democrat, Republican, Independant, Communist, joe blow from idaho, all should have their actions scrutinized in the light of the Constitution which will show where they really stand, regardless of labels. A ‘liberal’ who votes for individual rights and a ‘conservative’ who votes for government greed are showing where they stand, no matter what their label. A ‘liberal’ who votes for government greed and a ‘conservative’ who votes for individual rights are doing likewise.
Politics is false advertising. Actions always have and always will speak louder than words.
Lefty Says: June 25th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Joy,
I agree with you on the issue of Eminent Domain. Why should the Wal-Marts, Targets, Home Depots etc. have the right to force anyone else to sell their land? It is absolutely absurd. But it is equivalent to geing in the path of a tsunami - there is nothing you can do to stop the super rich from taking your stuff when they decide to do it. I have an aquaintance who is among the super rich who builds big mega shopping malls and he looks at last week’s court decision as “the triumph of capitalism.” Have you seen the Australian movie “The Castle?” (by director Rob Sitch). Daryl, who fights to save his house from an expanding mega airport is my hero. If you want to understand my views on Eminent Domain, check out that movie.
Suzanne Says: June 25th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
I read about this a few days ago, not only is this for American Citizens but someone from say India, can come to the US and demand that Prime Beach Front Property be sold for a fraction of its value so this person from India can build some business on the land.
I am not complete informed yet on this, but so far another scary Bush Lier Deal.
Outsourcing, sending all of americas private and personal info to India, now we can not even hold on to our land
Is this the home of Americans or must we move somewhere else.
Suzanne YEAH EMINENT DOMAIN learned that in Realestate school
joy Says: June 26th, 2005 at 1:19 am
Lefty,
Is your acquaintance pre-converted Ebenezer (sp?) Scrooge come back? Capitalism does not require individual rights to be trampled to be a success. Greed does not equal capitalism nor does capitalism have to equal greed. This is a disgusting display of Greed and lust for money and power, NOT a triumph of capitalism. It’s a disgrace to true capitalism.
joy Says: June 26th, 2005 at 1:41 am
Everyone-
Have you checked your state constitutions yet to see that they are worded to ensure that this cannot happen in your state?
This Supreme Court decision doesn’t override, and in fact puts the power right in, the state constitutions.
Lefty Says: June 26th, 2005 at 2:39 am
Joy,
Please explain “true capitalism” to me. As I understand it, the free market economy is an entity that manages itself. In pure capitalism there is no right or wrong, only that which generates wealth and that which does not. Correct me if I am wrong. The government is the people protecting themselves,collectively, from hostile companies etc who have positioned themselves to dominate others.
Anna Says: June 26th, 2005 at 6:14 pm
Joy,
As for the liberal Supreme Court, I only have this to say. Bush: 2000: Florida.
Anna Says: June 26th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
What Karl Rove doesn’t get about liberals. We are pissed that Bush diverted attention away from the real war on terror and invaded Iraq which was a two-bit player in the world terror scene. Liberals want to go after the terrorists. Rove wants to go after votes, middle east oil (which isn’t working, by the way), and contracts for his corporate friends (Bush calls them his “political base”). Iraq has worsened the terror problem and was the worst possible move at a time when we needed to be focused on the problem.
joy Says: June 26th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
I’ll start by saying that I don’t know what ‘true’ capitalism is, only what I see it as. I’ll also add that in our imperfect world (due to a people imperfect, flawed, faulty, cracked…you get the point) every type of ‘ism’ will include greed, lust, and corruption…socialism, communism, capitalism, and all other ‘isms’. What I see as ‘true’ capitalism is (at the very basic) individuals being able to invest their money in the business or production of their choice to make a profit; at whatever level they choose to operate. This is certainly easy for the rich, but it isn’t impossible for most to do at some point if it’s their desire. As with everything, the problems come in when unscrupulous people take part in a good system. That has always been the case. Laws should be protecting individual’s constitutional rights in these cases, not the unscrupulous and greedy. To me, that is the purpose of law, to protect those who abide by it from those who use it’s letter to steamroll (to put it verrrry tactfully) the individual citizen.
I don’t see capitalism, any more than any other ‘ism’, as promoting greed; rather I see our nature promoting greed and using it in capitalism. When the unscrupulous can use the very Constitution meant to protect individual rights to their own gain, it’s time to write very clear wording that leaves no room for snakes to slither through.
Lefty Says: June 26th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
Joy,
You asked if my acquaintance was a pre-converted Scrooge comeback. I don’t know. I do know that he commands a great deal of respect in the republican party, however. He is the only member of my circle of friends who is invited to small, intimate roundtable discussions with VP Cheney.
Circe Says: June 27th, 2005 at 12:29 am
I must be missing something in the senator Durbin story. He read an FBI agents report (verbatim) that was based on the FBI agent’s eyewitness account of prisoner treatment at Gitmo. Durbin says that this sort of treatment is not the sort of behavior that Americans approve of. It seems to me that the focus should be on the FBI agent’s report. Either the FBI agent is not telling the truth or Gitmo interogators are behaving badly and should be investigated. The focus on Durbin strikes me as the response of people who have something to hide and hope to distract us from the more imporant issues and questions.
joy Says: June 28th, 2005 at 6:26 am
Lefty,
Regarding #14.
Why am I not surprised that this acquaintance of yours has a major flaw? It seems that throughout the history of time those in power have had herculan strengths and flaws.
Though the Republican platform wording does closely represent where I stand on ‘issues’, I do not agree with everything that leading Republicans say, do or believe. This is one obvious point. I am not a “Bushican”. I’m not a Republican worshipper. I’m an American.
I consider myself a conservative in many areas, which puts me on the ‘right’ politically. I also strongly believe that this country is governed, directly or indirectly, by the people and that we get the government we allow. I believe we are the biggest corporation there is and our biggest enemy is our baser nature and/or the love of pleasure over freedom. In our type of government, we hand freedoms over by negligence, ignorance, apathy or in trade for ‘assistance’. They cannot be taken unless we’ve allowed it somehow. Having said all that, I disagree with the thought that stealing an individual’s property by using the very Amendment meant to protect it is in any way a “triumph of capitalism”. In my narrow Conservative Republican mind, that mindset is (to use the same Dickens context)
Marley’s chain.
Antilla The Hun Says: June 28th, 2005 at 7:30 am
Ironic twist of fate isn’t it? For once I agree with the conservatives on this issue, Big Businesses have absolutely no right to take peoples property. Now, Having Lived on the west coast most of my life, and recently, the east coast, this particularly angers me, because Costal areas have huge property value to corporations, and now, they can simply take the land that my family has owned for generations, because they like any profit the land could bring them. Sickening.
Despite the total depravity of the Bush/Limbaughians and their constant attack on everything America stands for, America needs both liberals and conservatives, varying from instance to instance. In this instance, for once, we fell a conservative short of what America needed.
joy Says: June 28th, 2005 at 7:58 am
Circe,
Senator Durbin didn’t blandly say “this sort of treatment is not the sort of behavior that Americans approve of”; he compared these actions with horrific atrocities where thousands were slaughtered. How many have been slaughtered at Gitmo? Where’s the bloodthirst to wipe out a whole race? Does he think the FBI report so weak in itself that he needs to flirt dangerously with sedition to give it some oooomph, so to speak?
Let the FBI report speak for itself. We don’t need any of our leaders to be comparing our troops’ actions to atrocities way beyond the scope of anything happening at Gitmo.
It’s like putting your personal faulty angry actions on the same scale as Ted Bundy’s and Richard Kuklinsky’s murders…on national news.
Do you think it might have an affect on people’s perception of you?
There’s also this interesting angle…is Senator Durby allowing himself to be a scapegoat for some reason? I don’t think it would be for the present administration. Or, is he just stupid? It’s hard for me to fathom any type of mindset that would say such wildly misleading and borderline seditious statements.
What I’m wondering is, whose pulling his string?
He is one place to look when blame is being laid for not enough attention on the FBI reports.
Circe Says: June 29th, 2005 at 11:18 am
Joy,
But the sorts of behavior described by the FBI agent were not the sorts of things that we as americans should expect of our troops. They WERE more like what one would have expected to hear of the gulags! Durbin did NOT say that GITMO was identical to a gulag or that we were blood thirsty and slaughtered thousands. That was just the conservative over reaction to his statement. What he said was that the behavior described by the FBI agent was more fitting of the Stalinists than of a democratic government. He was absolutely right about that. The conservative spin artists have turned Durbin’s statement into something it wasn’t even close to. I think the motive of the spin artists was to distract people from the content of the FBI agent’s report. Let’s focus on what the report says and get to the bottom of that important matter.
joy Says: June 30th, 2005 at 8:23 am
Circe,
I agree that the FBI report definitely needs to be seriously looked into.
I also still think that Senator Durbin’s comparison was extreme, even considering the portion of the FBI report that he read.
Just to clarify what Senator Durbin did say:
“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what
Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by
Nazis,
Soviets in their gulags,
or some mad regime —
Pol Pot or others —
that had no concern for human beings.”
I would like to hear what people who have been in those situations have to say…and if they agree with that statement. That is when I consider I will have heard from an expert regarding the comparison.
Before I go further I want to reiterate that torture is WRONG and we can and must be above it.
Please keep that in mind when reading what I say next.
Having been in physically abusive situations (though not what’s described in the quote from the FBI report)as well as being falsely accused and having, basically, my mortgage money ‘legally’ stolen by the accuser after a kangaroo court, I’ve become a stickler for exact detail concerning accusations.
In re-reading only the portion of the FBI report that Senator Durbin quoted, I, frankly don’t know what happened…even in the instances given.
How much hair is a “pile” of hair? Is this something they do in their culture to show grief?
Is the “pile” bigger than the amount in my hairbrush each morning?…which looks like a darn lot to me.
Does “apparently” constitute the words that follow as fact?
How cold is “cold”?
Specifically what temperature is “well over 100 degrees”? (And is it similar to the “well over a 100 degrees” that these people live in day in and day out in their native land?) Was the “extremely loud rap music” louder than my son’s?
Why are the ‘torturers’ letting the FBI see these people in these conditions?
I’m not clear on what this portion is saying…it leaves too much room for assumption and conjecture in my opinion.
So, definitely, clarify and verify exactly what’s being said here.
And then, take appropriate action.
K. Marx Says: July 1st, 2005 at 5:51 am
Greed is a measure of morality. Economics is amoral. You can say someone operated in a greedy fashion, but you can’t give a normative label to something that can’t act, e.g., capitalism, socialism, etc. Perhaps one ideology lends itself towards greed, but that doesn’t make the ideology ‘greedy’; it only makes the people committing the action greedy.
Circe Says: July 2nd, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Nation Public Radio’s translator in Iraq, Dr. Yasser Salihee, was killed at a checkpoint last Friday, June 24. see NPR.org for the story (”A True Friend in Iraq”). He was shot through the head by a US sniper while preparing to take his family swimming. Also, Reuters reports that Iraq’s U.N. ambassador accused U.S. Marines on Friday of firing at and killing his cousin in cold blood during a house raid near the western town of Haditha on June 25. “All indications point to a killing of an unarmed innocent civilian — a cold blooded murder,” Sumaidaie said. Innocent and insurgents are killed indiscriminately in Iraq. This war is a disaster and it is getting worse by the minute. Face the facts.
joy Says: July 3rd, 2005 at 6:02 am
The laws are definitely for the lawless, which we all are to some degree, or we wouldn’t need any. Therefore, when we have little restraint within ourselves, more outward restraint is required. We need to either aim high for more inner restraint or have to have laws that are so meticulously worded that even poor judges can’t use them against us. Is this possible?
Circe Says: July 4th, 2005 at 1:42 am
Joy,
If words are involved, then interpretation is necessary. If interpretation is necessary, different minds will reach different conclusions. It will never be possible to program laws the way we program computers. This is due both to the nature of the human mind and to the complexity of the contexts in which human activity is embedded. Ultimately, all documents are necessarily somewhat vague. We may have a government of laws but people must interpret the law. A strength of our system is that power is distributed. The more widely distributed power is, the less damage any one individual can do.
joy Says: July 5th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
Circe,
Regarding your comment #24, the wider the distribution of power, the closer to anarchy and thus to vulnerability of the influence of a strong-minded group or individual.
Influence of strong people who work any system will not be stopped by wider and wider distribution of power. Limited power of leaders and people is essential.
I do believe that there needs to be more executive and judicial accountability- as the government was set up originally.
I believe misuse of laws is going to be slowwwwed only by high personal standards of the majority - because high standards call for action rather than apathy. Right now there are too many agendas and not enough citizens acting for the good of the country.
As President Kennedy said; “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
Not your agenda, but “your country”…which is made up of individuals who must be considered as such rather than some large impersonal entity called “your country”.