'Fifth Amendment\r'

'The 5th Amendment dates back to the seventeenth century, in England. They used it to comfort their citizens. It was designed to protect us unspoilt alike(p) it protected the concourse in England. It protects us against judicature authority in a legal procedure.Amendment 5 states, â€Å"No mortal shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in courtships arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in term of war or frequent danger; nor shall whatsoever soulfulness be subject for the akin offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be completed in whatsoever(prenominal) criminal occurrence to be a witness against himself, nor be divest of life, liberty, or property, without due process of lawfulness; nor shall surreptitious property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Question #1 What specific constituencies as serted the provisions of this amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention? Who were they and wherefore did they support it? The Federalists (James Madison) introduced and supported the provisions of the 5th amendment. Madison include a constitutional provision that an individual shall non â€Å"be compelled to be a witness against himself. ” relation added the words â€Å"in all criminal case”, meaning that the provision, which go out become one of the fifth part Amendment’s clauses providing safeguards against abuse of criminal laws.Because the idea that doubling jeopardy was wrong was so widely upheld by the colonists, James Madison also presented the Double chance Clause to Congress. Question #2 Were in that respect any groups or persons that were against the inclusion of this amendment (or any part 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 thither any changes or modifications proposed that were not included in the amendment? Who or what constituencies supported or opposed the proposed changes? wherefore? galore(postnominal) representatives rose to argue that Madison’s formulate of the Double Jeopardy Clause was not pie-eyed adequacy. Madison had worded his Double Jeopardy Clause like this, â€Å"No subject shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment, or trial for the equal offense. ” Some representatives argued that the phrase â€Å"or trial” would proceed populate from receiving a retrial if they had convicted improperly in their starting trial. Eventually the phrase was left out, and the Congress and the States voted to shop the 5th 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 incl uded in the original broadside of Rights? The Fifth Amendment states that â€Å"No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. ” This in force(p) was created in reaction to the British courts of equity in 1487. These courts were truth-seekers. The prosecutors did not have to grow the case instead they got proof from confessions out of the accuse. The accused were required to answer any questions from the prosecutors at any time.The usual law courts of England adopted the principle of nemo tenetur †that no man should be bound to accuse himself. The regenerate to be free from self-incrimination was established in common law throughout most of the colonies before it appeared in the US constitution. Question #5 Have there been any attempts to change or repeal this amendment through the years? When and by whom? Who or what constituencies supported or opposed the changes or attempts at repeal? Why? SOURCE 1 (http:/www. enotes. com/amer ican-court-case) The 1887 Act of Congress allowed the organization to compel an individual to testify against himself.Counselman vs. Hitchcock 1882. In 1891 Charles Counselman, a grain businessman was brought before the court for violation. The dinero court requested it mandatory that Charles answer real questions; Counselman refused on the grounds of self-incrimination. The Supreme Court, with Justice Blatchford braggy the opinion, declared the 1887 law as related to the Fifth Amendment is not of the Bill of Rights. Source 2 (www. blackwellreference. com/public/tocnode The California State law granted place to prosecute any criminal defendants who exercise his or ‘her right to sleek over’, by interpreting the silence as an inference of depravity.In 1965 in the griffon vs. California, doyen 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 Supr eme Court, with Justice Douglas cock-a-hoop the ruling, declared that inferring that a person’s right to remain silent is to be deemed guilty is ever-changing the Fifth to suit the court. Source3 (http;/ www. lectlaw. com/files) California State instituted the law of â€Å"Immunity” which compels an individual to testify against himself, with the guarantee that it will not be used to prosecute him.In 1972, Kastigar vs. united States, Charled Kastigar refused to reply even though he was presumptuousness the guarantee. The California law was qualifying the Fifth Amendment’s right to be silent. The Supreme Court imagine Powell delivered the opinion, which granted â€Å"Use Immunity” which was compatible with the Fifth Amendment. Use Immunity would not allow anything that was disposed(p) in testimony to be used as evidence for prosecution, nor in any other come through case against the defendant. Question #6 Are there currently any constituencies that w ant this amendment changed, abbreviated, expanded or repealed?Who would support such(prenominal) changes and why? Who would oppose such changes and why? In 2007 George W. scrubbing issued an executive cast that effectively destroyed the Fifth Amendment. This executive put in that he signed claimed that he has the power to enamor the property of any person who undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political remedy in Iraq. Bush declared that he can take people’s 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.\r\n'