WEAKENING OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT IS GETTING WORSE!

Like this article?

SupremeCourt

The history of the Fifth Amendment is rarely talked about. The protections have grown since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. The reason was that the Due Process clause allowed the Fifth in state courts, where before it was only allowed in federal courts. That opened up protections that had never been there before. Now, with last year’s Supreme Court ruling on Salinas v. Texas, the timing and method of the self-incrimination clause has changed. The ruling affected the recent California Supreme Court ruling for The People v. Tom. People need to become aware of how this affects them.

What the Fifth Amendment says

Here, via the Cornel Law site, is the Fifth Amendment.

“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.”

Salinas v. Texas

The Supreme Court ruling on the Salinas v. Texas took away the implied self-incrimination clause when a person goes silent. It also allows the silence to be used against the person. If the person now wants to use their Fifth Amendment rights, they must especially state it. The other part of the ruling is timing. The person has to state the right even if the Miranda rights have not been stated. That means if the person is just dealing with a few questions from the cops, goes silent, than that is evidence in court.

Miranda rights

Though Miranda rights were ruled as a Constitutional requirement in Miranda v. Arizona, two current Supreme Court Justices do not believe they are. In Dickerson v. United States, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas spoke against Miranda rights in the dissenting opinion, seen here.

 It takes only a small step to bring today’s opinion out of the realm of power-judging and into the mainstream of legal reasoning: The Court need only go beyond its carefully couched iterations that “Miranda is a constitutional decision,” ante, at 8, that “Miranda is constitutionally based,” ante, at 10, that Miranda has “constitutional underpinnings,” ante, at 10, n. 5, and come out and say quite clearly: “We reaffirm today that custodial interrogation that is not preceded by Miranda warnings or their equivalent violates the Constitution of the United States.” It cannot say that, because a majority of the Court does not believe it. The Court therefore acts in plain violation of the Constitution when it denies effect to this Act of Congress.

The Supreme Court is working to change how the Constitution should be enforced. This works against the people, as most people do not keep up with all court rulings. It is a dream for prosecutors.

JOIN THE TEA PARTY 3%ERS GROUP ON FACEBOOK BY CLICKING HERE!

PAUL SHANNON @ AMERICAS FREEDOM FIGHTERS

DEAN JAMES @ AMERICAS FREEDOM FIGHTERS

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER!

PLEASE SHARE OUR ARTICLES ON ALL SOCIAL MEDIA AND GO TO OUR HOMEPAGE FOR MORE REAL NEWS FOR REAL PATRIOTS! 

http://americasff.wpengine.com

Like this article?

Facebook Comments

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×