Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Most readers know to one degree or another about the 5th Amendment right: "no person shall be...compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
Did you know there was a connection between the 5th and 2nd Amendments? And, that a US Supreme Court Justice laid it out in plain English? I didn't. Until I read a book--Origins of the Bill of Rights. Leonard Levy, 1999.
Keep in mind that being forced to testify against oneself flies in the face of self-preservation--the strongest impulse in nature, and the 5th Amendment has deep roots going back to the late 1630's in England. In the chapter on the 5th Amendment, Levy goes into the history behind the 5A. And, he writes,
[The Framers] were...voicing their conviction that the right against self-incrimination was a legitimate defense possessed by every individual against government...Tough-minded revolutionists...they were willing to risk lives and fortunes in support of their beliefs that government is but an instrument of the people, its sovereignty held in subordination to their rights...The Constitution with its amendments was...an ever-present reminder of their view that the citizen is the master of the government, not its subject. As Justice Abe Fortas observed, "The principle that a man is not obliged to furnishe the state with ammunition to use against him is basic to this conception. The state, he acknowledged, must defend itself and, "within the limits of accepted proecedure" punish lawbreakers. "But it has no right to compel the sovereign individual to surrender or impair his right of self-defense." (emphasis added by Citizen).
Surrender or impair his right of self-defense! Wow! I wonder if Fortas knew when he wrote that, he was making a strong argument for the 2nd Amendment as well as the 5th. If anybody recognizes that quote from a SCOTUS opinion, please let me know.*
While I am on the subject of the 5th Amendment, I'll go off on a tangent and discuss another angle not answering questions from police. We occasionally get a cop or citizen who suggests cooperating by answering questions asked by police. This is for them.
We've all heard the Miranda Warning, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you...". The warning comes from Miranda vs Arizona. It was decided by at least 6-3, maybe 7-2 (I would have to dig a little deeper).
So, you have at least six of the most powerful, influential lawyers in the country giving you free legal advice. What would it cost if you had to keep that kind of legal power on retainer? We got it for free. Are you really advising us to ignore the considered legal advice of not one, but six of the most powerful, influential attorneys in the country? Attorney's who considered the advice so important that they 1) wrote it down for us and, 2) ordered that police shall pass along their legal advice--free--at a certain point in police investigations?
Miranda v Arizona: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZO.html
*8/7/10 I found where Fortas wrote the quoted material. See the "I Found It!" post below.
Did you know there was a connection between the 5th and 2nd Amendments? And, that a US Supreme Court Justice laid it out in plain English? I didn't. Until I read a book--Origins of the Bill of Rights. Leonard Levy, 1999.
Keep in mind that being forced to testify against oneself flies in the face of self-preservation--the strongest impulse in nature, and the 5th Amendment has deep roots going back to the late 1630's in England. In the chapter on the 5th Amendment, Levy goes into the history behind the 5A. And, he writes,
[The Framers] were...voicing their conviction that the right against self-incrimination was a legitimate defense possessed by every individual against government...Tough-minded revolutionists...they were willing to risk lives and fortunes in support of their beliefs that government is but an instrument of the people, its sovereignty held in subordination to their rights...The Constitution with its amendments was...an ever-present reminder of their view that the citizen is the master of the government, not its subject. As Justice Abe Fortas observed, "The principle that a man is not obliged to furnishe the state with ammunition to use against him is basic to this conception. The state, he acknowledged, must defend itself and, "within the limits of accepted proecedure" punish lawbreakers. "But it has no right to compel the sovereign individual to surrender or impair his right of self-defense." (emphasis added by Citizen).
Surrender or impair his right of self-defense! Wow! I wonder if Fortas knew when he wrote that, he was making a strong argument for the 2nd Amendment as well as the 5th. If anybody recognizes that quote from a SCOTUS opinion, please let me know.*
While I am on the subject of the 5th Amendment, I'll go off on a tangent and discuss another angle not answering questions from police. We occasionally get a cop or citizen who suggests cooperating by answering questions asked by police. This is for them.
We've all heard the Miranda Warning, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you...". The warning comes from Miranda vs Arizona. It was decided by at least 6-3, maybe 7-2 (I would have to dig a little deeper).
So, you have at least six of the most powerful, influential lawyers in the country giving you free legal advice. What would it cost if you had to keep that kind of legal power on retainer? We got it for free. Are you really advising us to ignore the considered legal advice of not one, but six of the most powerful, influential attorneys in the country? Attorney's who considered the advice so important that they 1) wrote it down for us and, 2) ordered that police shall pass along their legal advice--free--at a certain point in police investigations?
Miranda v Arizona: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZO.html
*8/7/10 I found where Fortas wrote the quoted material. See the "I Found It!" post below.
Last edited: