21 votes

DailyPaul covering 5th Ammendment.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/28/republican-led-ho...

Are we warriors for liberty here?

I was appalled to read the news today that our government has passed a resolution claiming that it has the power to compel an individual to incriminate herself. They have decided that by virtue of the fact that she had spoken before, that constitutes her "waiving" her Fifth Amendment rights.

I was appalled at this obvious attack on our civil liberties, but not quite as appalled as I am about the fact that I haven't seen anyone else even mention this.

Here at the Daily Paul, the fortress of solitude for the liberty movement, this attack on liberty seems to be taking a back seat to discussions of gay bikers and bestiality.

The only way to waive your 5th Amendment right is to start talking. If you would like to discontinue your talking at any point, you still have that right. The public is being tricked into validating a legal argument against the 5th Amendment because the case involves a woman who is almost universally disliked at this point.

Let me ask you all to remember however, these rights aren't subject to our opinion of those claiming them. Whether Lois Lerner is guilty or not, her right to remain silent is just as important to you as it is to her, and an attack on that right cannot be tolerated, especially in a place like the DailyPaul, that is of course, if the DailyPaul is still a place where people come to learn about, respect, and fight for liberty.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rights of the accused.

Remember though, the 5th amendment doesn't simply cover the accused, it covers everyone, whether you've been accused of something or not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
This video is amazing at driving that point home and why it is so important. Even if you only get 10 minutes into it, it's worth it.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

As I see it...

The fifth amendment was instituted to protect you from compulsory self-incrimination or from being compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against yourself.

If a you feel the answer to any question may incriminate you, then you can remain silent.

You can only be compelled to answer a question if granted immunity from prosecution should that answer incriminate you.

Once immunity has been granted (even if you have not asked for it) you can no longer remain silent because the answer can no longer be used to incriminate you and the 5th amendment does not apply, if under these circumstances you still refuse to answer you would be held in contempt of court.

The Fifth Amendment is centered around the right of the accused to refuse to comment or provide an answer when questioned (You have the right to remain silent).

Any answer given in court is admissible and can be used as evidence, once protection of the 5th is invoked (by refusing to answer for fear of incriminating yourself) it is up to the court to decide whether - in the circumstances - immunity to the witness (you) could aid in the pursuit of justice.

At trial - under the protection of the 5th - the prosecution can neither call the you as a witness, nor comment on your failure to testify. It is up to the prosecution to prove their case alone with the evidence that brought you to court in the first place.

Even a signed confession cannot be used as evidence of guilt unless it can be proven that it was given without the threat or use of duress of any kind.

Quite simply put:

Any question answered without force is admissible in court, should the law be used to force an answer, then immunity is guaranteed by the 5th amendment.

This common understanding was drawn from the times when torture and brutality was used by those in positions to enforce “justice”.

You cannot be punished for the crime of remaining silent, such a law does not exist!

Nor can anyone assume that not answering an accusatory question somehow implies guilt.

Even in the event that you have answered prior questions, you can not be expected to answer a question (by force) that may incriminate you. Force – once approved in law - could be applied until the desired answer is given.

It's not rocket science if you think about it.

I repeat:

It is up to the prosecution alone to prove their case with the evidence that brought you to court in the first place.
...should the law be used to force an answer, then immunity is guaranteed by the 5th amendment.

The granting of immunity in this case (which is what testimony under the force of law would automatically guarantee) would only serve justice if it could lead to evidence against another person who is ultimately responsible for the crime at hand.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

She was under oath, made a statement, ASSERTED HER INNOCENCE

then decided to "plead the 5th" to not allow anyone to cross-examine her.

This is not someone who got pulled over on the highway. This is a woman who had very expensive legal council, paid for by our tax dollars, weeks of notice that she was to testify, and probably got to and from the court house in a chauffeured car will full security detail (paid for by our tax dollars).

Most importantly she is a PUBLIC OFFICIAL being questioned about her actions while in the official capacity of serving WE THE PEOPLE.

WE THE PEOPLE deserve a cross-examination of her statements of innocence.

So what.

Tell where any of that is more important or cancels out the 5th Amendment. It doesn't matter what you think you deserve, or what she may have to hide. She can start answering questions and stop mid-sentence if she wants. That is her right. That is your right.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

No one is denying her 5th amendment right.

There are rules and procedures to courts and congressional testimonies. Nothing will prevent her from pleading the 5th under new questioning. However, she provided testimony under oath and gave assertions that the Congressmen have the right to question those assertions. If she chooses to plead the 5th to those questions, then she can, but if she makes an assertion under oath in testimony, then the congress has the right to cross-examine that assertion. You don't go into court and have a defendant give his testimony only to say NO I will not be cross examined. Once assertions are made under oath, then the congressmen have a right to question those assertions. NOTHING will prevent her from being able to answer "I plead the 5th" in a new question session.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

OP is correct

Lois Lerner, as much as we have reason to want her testimony, still has 5th Amendment protection.

"No person shall ..."

"No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".
The constitution says nothing about having to continue to talk once you've started. Nor does it say you must witness against yourself if you first witness for yourself. The language is very plain and simple.

Further, witnesses here are not called to a criminal case.


http://youtu.be/cTNEPNtdFNg
A grand jury did not convene nor make a presentment. Nor is a jury convened. Nor is a judge presiding. Nary a kangaroo!

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Give the Daily Paul a break...

You think it is easy staying up to date on all the government abuse and fraud that is uncovered on a daily basis?

I just graduated law school

a criminal defendant waives their 5th Amendment right once they decide to take the stand. A witness, however, must take the stand, be sworn in under oath, and then raise her 5th amendment privilege to remain silent. Whether or not a witness, like the IRS lady, who was sworn in under oath, and made a statement prior to invoking her 5th amendment right waived such right, is at issue. I am not sure if this issue has ever been addressed by the Supreme Court, but reasonable people can disagree about the meaning of the constitution and whether the 5th amendment is absolute and may be invoked at any point in time, even after speaking. Further, it is physically impossible to compel someone to speak, aside from torture. So even if the House re-calls her as a witness and informs her that under their interpretation of the constitution (which they don't have the final say in how it is interpreted, see Marbury v. Madison), all they can do is hold her in contempt, which she would appeal via writ and the Supreme Court would have to rule on the issue.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

Why is Congress Holding Court? Grand Jury? Jury? & Judge?

Clowns a plenty! How does this circus compare?

Congress holds hearings which may accept witness testimony under pretense of writing better legislation. No "Miranda Rights." No Grand Jury. No Jury. No Judge.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Its called Congressional Oversight... and we need more not less

Unless you are for an executive branch running absolutely buck wild.

Contempt of Congress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

"Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically the bribery of a senator or representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a Congressional committee or subcommittee — usually seeking to compel either testimony or the production of documents.

...

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation)."

"Are you trying to show contempt for this court?" - Judge

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Thank you

That seems pretty clear. :)

If she were to be offered immunity for her testimony

could she be held in contempt?

that is another issue

that is another issue entirely. grand parent poster seems to have more law training than the rest of us and may be better suited to answer that question.

Jason Robinson
Secretary
Republican Liberty Caucus of Idaho
http://www.IdahoLibertyCaucus.org

5th Amendment: An Overview ~ Cornell University

Cornell Law School

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "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 taken for public use, without just compensation."
==========================
Answering for a crime? Or does the IRS do something else?

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Yes .. she had the right to remain silent..

What she lacked was the capacity..

as is frequently mentioned in

as is frequently mentioned in police training

guilty persons often feel compelled to explain their actions. or to excuse them, or to justify them.

innocent people question why they are there, why they are a suspect, and deny the charges.

She did not remain silent. she decided to take the stand, and then to choose what she got to talk about, to give a defense, while not subjecting herself to cross examination.

that pretty much illustrates that she wanted to have the benefit of both the protection against self incrimination, while at the same time providing only the testimony she wanted to give without also providing the prosecution (congress) the ability to cross examine her on the topics she testified.

That is all I have to add to this topic.

Jason Robinson
Secretary
Republican Liberty Caucus of Idaho
http://www.IdahoLibertyCaucus.org

Yeah...

I agree with you.. and I think you are agreeing with me..

I said she HAD the right to remain silent.. but she waived that right because she couldn't keep quiet..or "lacked the capacity" to remain silent ..

It's actually from the movie SHREK .. when donkey is being taken by the guards and is yelling "I have the right to remain silent!!" and Shrek says, "Donkey! You HAVE the right to remain silent.. what you lack is the capacity"

I thought it fitting

My understanding

of it is that she made an opening statement proclaiming her innocence, then took the 5th.

I'm not a lawyer, but the objection is that you can't tell only your side of the story then clam up and not subject yourself to cross-examination. If you're going to plead the 5th, then you just basically shut up, or say at the most that you're pleading the 5th. Her problem is she proclaimed innocence.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/22/i-have-not-done-a...

You most certainly can.....

...tell only your side of the story. If we are talking about a trial, then that is exactly what you do. You tell your side and hope that the jury agrees with you. Yes the prosecution can cross examine, however, you still have the right not to answer their questions. You cannot be compelled to speak. Whether that incriminates you unjustly in the eyes of the jury is another story, but the right exists because the jury, the lawyers, the judge, etc. are all humans who are imperfect and may try to use what you've said against you, even if they use it incorrectly.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

I upvoted

you. I think you're right.

Bump

It doesn't mean I will comply. If they have no evidence then they have no authority.

Of course, that may mean suffering the consequence of living a life of slavery, where the thugs only have authority because they have all the guns.

Free includes debt-free!

Disgusting,

Bumpzilla!

Whoah. Thanks for the heads up.

What would the Founders do?