Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment dates back to the 17th century, in England. They used it to protect their citizens. It was knowing to protect us just like it protected the people in England. It protects us against government pronouncement in a legal procedure.Amendment 5 states, No person shall be held to effect for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, just in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual value in time of war or everyday danger nor shall any person be undetermined for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or subdivision nor shall be completed in any sad case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due cover of law nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Question 1 What specific constituencies supported the provisions of this amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention? W ho were they and wherefore did they support it? The Federalists (James Madison) introduced and supported the provisions of the 5th amendment. Madison included a constitutional provision that an unmarried shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself. Congress added the words in any criminal case, meaning that the provision, which will become one of the Fifth Amendments clauses providing safeguards against abuse of criminal laws.Because the supposition that double jeopardy was wrong was so widely upheld by the colonists, James Madison also presented the double up Jeopardy article to Congress. Question 2 Were there any groups or persons that were against the inclusion of this amendment (or any variance of it)? Who were they and why did they not support it? There were not any groups or persons that were against the inclusion of the 5th Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Question 3 Were there any changes or modifications proposed that were not include d in the amendment? Who or what constituencies supported or opposed the proposed changes?Why? Many representatives rose to argue that Madisons wording of the Double Jeopardy Clause was not strong enough. Madison had worded his Double Jeopardy Clause like this, No subject shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment, or run for the same offense. Some representatives argued that the phrase or trial would prevent people from receiving a retrial if they had convicted improperly in their first trial. Eventually the phrase was left out, and the Congress and the States voted to make the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause, as we know it, law.Question 4 What (if any) were the historical causes for this amendment to be important enough to be included in the skipper Bill of Rights? The Fifth Amendment states that No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. This right was created in reaction to the British coquette s of equity in 1487. These courts were truth-seekers. The prosecutors did not turn in to prove the case instead they got proof from confessions out of the prosecuted. The accused were required to answer any questions from the prosecutors at any time.The common law courts of England adopted the principle of nemo tenetur that no man should be bound to accuse himself. The right to be free from self-incrimination was established in common law throughout most of the colonies in the lead it appeared in the US constitution. Question 5 Have there been any attempts to change or invalidation this amendment through the years? When and by whom? Who or what constituencies supported or opposed the changes or attempts at supplant? Why? SOURCE 1 (http/www. enotes. com/american-court-case) The 1887 Act of Congress geted the government to compel an individual to testify against himself.Counselman vs. Hitchcock 1882. In 1891 Charles Counselman, a grain businessman was brought before the court f or violation. The Chicago court requested it mandatory that Charles answer certain questions Counselman refused on the grounds of self-incrimination. The Supreme dally, with arbiter Blatchford giving the opinion, declared the 1887 law as connect to the Fifth Amendment is not of the Bill of Rights. Source 2 (www. blackwellreference. com/public/tocnode The California State law given author to prosecute any criminal defendants who exercise his or her right to silence, by reading the silence as an inference of guilt.In 1965 in the Griffin vs. California, Dean Griffin was accused of murder. In the court Griffin refused to speak. His silence was ruled as an acknowledgement of guilt and Griffin was sentenced on those grounds. The Supreme Court, with Justice Douglas giving the ruling, declared that inferring that a persons right to remain silent is to be deemed blameful is changing the Fifth to suit the court. Source3 (http/ www. lectlaw. com/files) California State instituted the law of Immunity which compels an individual to testify against himself, with the stock-purchase warrant that it will not be used to prosecute him.In 1972, Kastigar vs. United States, Charled Kastigar refused to reply even though he was given the guarantee. The California law was qualifying the Fifth Amendments right to be silent. The Supreme Court Judge Powell delivered the opinion, which granted Use Immunity which was compatible with the Fifth Amendment. Use Immunity would not allow anything that was given in testimony to be used as evidence for prosecution, nor in any other succeeding case against the defendant. Question 6 Are there currently any constituencies that want this amendment changed, abbreviated, spread out or repealed?Who would support such changes and why? Who would oppose such changes and why? In 2007 George W. Bush issued an executive director order that effectively destroyed the Fifth Amendment. This executive order that he signed claimed that he has the power to s eize the property of any person who undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and policy-making reform in Iraq. Bush declared that he can take peoples property without due process if the government determines in some way that a person is undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq.