What Does Taking the Fifth Amendment Mean?

The Fifth Amendment includes the phrase: “(No Person) shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,”

To understand, we must remember that the Constitution specifies what the Federal Government may or may not do not what individuals may or may not do. Limitations on citizens are called “Laws.”

The Federal Government may not consider the individual guilty or punish the individual when the individual claims the Fifth Amendment. Citizens may. There is nothing to prohibit citizens from believing an individual guilty of a criminal act and acting accordingly toward that individual when that individual claims the Fifth Amendment. After all they are admitting that if they testify they will be a witness against himself in a criminal case, just as the Constitution says.

Today it seems the Fifth Amendment is used whenever an individual does not want to testify; when testifying might cause embarrassment; when testifying might make public some information the individual does not want made public. What follows is Amendment V (1791) in its entirety.

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 offense 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 take for public use, without just compensation.

Mercenaries Patrolling Our Cities

The citizens of the United States should be aware that their federal government is using mercenary forces such as Blackwater, DynCorp, Intercon, American Security Group, Blackhawk, Wackenhut and an Israeli company called Instinctive Shooting International to police our cities such as New Orleans following Katrina.

The Federal government is ignoring Posse Comitatus (the ban on using US troops in domestic law enforcement). The presence of heavily armed private forces in New Orleans only demonstrates what everyone already feared: the utter breakdown of the government. To have them now on the streets of New Orleans is frightening, possibly illegal and definitely unconstitutional.

The Myth of Freedom of Speech

Recently our local news paper dropped Ann Coulter's column. It was their response to her statement about having to go to rehab if she used the term "faggot." As would be expected, the moronic cry of Censorship! was heard far and wide. Obviously these people do not understand the Constitution. Following is a letter-to-the-editor of the newspaper.

At the time of adopting the Constitution several states wanted additional restrictive clauses to prevent the Federal government from abusing its powers. Thus, beginning in 1791, we have Amendments to the Constitution with Amendments 1 through 10 AKA Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment, we hear quoted so frequently reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The Constitution of the United States sets limits on what the Federal government may or may not do. It says nothing about what individuals may or may not do. Those limitations are called Laws. Because of our ignorance of the Constitution “We the people,” have permitted the Judiciary Branch to make new laws and add invisible amendments to the Constitution.

While the Federal Government may not “abridge the freedom of speech,” private individuals and corporations do not have that same limitation. I, as an individual, am not required to listen to you and you have no Constitutional Right that requires me to listen to you. The Mountain Press is not required to print anything the owners do not want printed and may print anything the owners want printed. That is not censorship that is freedom of speech, The owners of The Mountain Press' freedom of speech.

I encourage the Readers of The Mountain Press to read the Constitution and know what it says as well as what it does not say and to stay in touch with our governments.

Another 'F' word

In response to Ann Coulter's latest comments about having to go to rehab if she talks about faggots our local paper decided to replace her as one of their commentators,.

Generally I agree with her comments but mostly I like that she is a burr under the Liberal's saddle. She is usually over the top and over reactive but it is fun to listen to her and her opponents play verbal tag. On one occasion Larry King of CNN tried everything he could to get her to contradict herself but she did not. That was interesting to watch.

Most of the time she thinks fast but not in this case. She succumbed to the same temptation everyone in a position of influence eventually succombs to and that is they begin to think they can do or say anything. She was in a safe environment and whether planned or by accident she overstepped her boundaries. She tried to be humorous at another's expense and now defends what she said by trying to change the accepted meaning of the term. What is the meaning of "is?"

I wonder if the paper would have had the same reaction if she had said homosexual, or gay or even queer. And I wonder if everyone's upsettedness comes from the idea the word she used is a term of contempt or that she was alluding to John Edwards being a closet homosexual, which I do not have any reason to believe that he is. If it is at all because she may have been accusing him of not being straight it should tell the world homosexual activity is not accepted no matter what the law claims and to allude to someone being one is a no-no and a major insult. If she had made a similar statement about a homosexual being straight most likely nothing would have been said. Based on the public reaction to a commercial during the Super Bowl the majority of Americans find homosexuality disgusting, revolting, dirty and something to disdain and they can think it but not say it in a public forum such as the one Ms Coulter found herself in.

Now we have one "N" word and 2 "F" words that will cause someone to have a hissy-fit. I wonder what is next.

I await our paper's decision on her replacement. But I suggest they do not hold out hope the next one won't do or say something stupid also,