Individual Rights: The Fifth Amendment

The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is made of 4 different sections. The first section explains what occurs if the president is removed from office or if they resign or worst die during their term. The second section basically lets one know how the vice presidency is filled if vacant. The President nominates someone, and the majority vote of both House of Congress makes the final decision. The third section states that if the president is disabled he must submit a written declaration stating that he is unable to perform his responsibility to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The vice president then holds the role of the acting president until the president can return

Yet Justice Black insists that the curfew was necessary, "… because we could not reject the finding of the military authorities that it was impossible to bring about an immediate segregation of the disloyal from the loyal…" Justice Frankfurter also comments that he could, "… find nothing in the Constitution which denies to Congress the power to enforce such a valid military order." So both Black and Frankfurter approve of the idea that the Fifth Amendment can forgo restricted application. Does this mean that there is a flaw in Hart's theory, or can primary and secondary rules run together and Black and Frankfurter simply applied the law erroneously? I would prefer the latter view, because given this situation where the Fifth Amendment has

The four basic components of the Fifth Amendment include: double jeopardy, due process, the right to be heard by a jury and safeguards against self-incrimination. Double jeopardy is when the individual can only be tried for a crime once. In the event that they are acquitted and new information surfaces, they cannot be retried again for the same crime. Instead, new charges would have to be filed showing the individual violated another area of the law. (Sundahl, 2011)

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney...this is what you hear on all your favorite cop shows. But, where did this saying come from? In 1963 Ernesto Miranda a ninth grade dropout (PBS) was arrested and charged with kidnaping, rape, and armed robbery. The police interrogated him for two hours. During the question Miranda supposedly admitted to all the crimes. The police then used Miranda’s confession to convict him in court. While in prison Miranda appealed his case and eventually brought it to the Supreme Court. The court ruled five to four in favor of Miranda. The Supreme Court was correct in their ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, because the majority opinion correctly argued the fifth and sixth amendments. The dissenting opinion arguments regarding the fifth and sixth amendments were incorrect and in other cases involving due process this amendment was abused. In similar cases the court ruled in favor of the defendant because he was harmed during the interrogation process.

There are different clauses that are incorporated within the Fifth Amendment which provide basic outline constitutional limits with respect to police procedures. These different clauses have been derived from various sections like Grand Juries Clause was derived by Framers and Magna Carta derived the Due Process Clause, dating back to 1215. The Fifth Amendment protects each and every individual, not just citizens. Top most scholars taken this into consideration and stated that the Fifth Amendment which is familiar to almost every individual can be classified by breaking down into five distinct constitutional rights:

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney...this is what you hear on all your favorite cop shows. But, where did this saying come from? In 1963 Ernesto Miranda a ninth grade dropout (PBS) was arrested and charged with kidnaping, rape, and armed robbery. The police interrogated him for two hours. During the question Miranda supposedly admitted to all the crimes. The police then used Miranda’s confession to convict him in court. While in prison Miranda appealed his case and eventually brought it to the Supreme Court. The court ruled five to four in favor of Miranda. The Supreme Court was correct in their ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, because

In my life no one has ever made the attempt to censor my speech or written word. I have never been imprisoned with or without a speedy trial. No soldier has ever been quartered in my home and property has never been confiscated. No lawsuit has ever been brought against me and certainly not one where I am dealing with a corrupt judge. This is a testament to the power and enduring strength of the constitution, its existence negates its applicability to my life. However, this only continues to be the truth as long as a well educated population makes the constant choice between individual rights and expediency, between freedom and security. I fear that the seventh amendment is falling victim to a lack of such necessary vigilance and examination.

or public danger. No one can be put on trial again for the same crime.

The justice of the peace courts states that being accused of a crime does not make you guilty. You are free from guilt unless you are proven guilty (Siegel, Schmalleger & Worrall 2014). However, this is a significant gain for the criminal justice system because the responsibility of truth is directed towards the accusers. Even though some may think because a person is accused of a crime they must be guilty. However, in this event, the prosecutor responsibility is to prove the accused is guilty beyond an unquestionable doubt. In a criminal case, the judge and jurors must keep their focus on the issue at hand. The Fifth Amendment is an additional gain of the criminal justice system because it protects the accused of having to answer questions

The Fifth Amendment refers to being put in “jeopardy of life or limb.” The clause, has been interpreted in many ways as providing protection regarding “every indictment or information charging a party with a known and defined crime or misdemeanor; although the clause, it has been held, does not prevent separate trials by different governments, the state plus federal governments are considered to be separate entities. Once acquitted of a crime, a person may not be tried for the same again, even if it was not followed by any type of judgment. Mistrials are generally not covered by the double jeopardy clause as stated in the Fifth Amendment and double jeopardy also does not apply if the later charge is civil rather than criminal in nature, which may include a different legal standard to follow. Acquittal in a criminal case will not prevent a plaintiff from suing the defendant in a civil suit relating to the same incident. For example, OJ Simpson, was acquitted of a double homicide in a California criminal prosecution, but lost a wrongful death claim that brought over the same victims.

or public danger. No one can be put on trial again for the same crime.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. (People v. Williams 20 Cal.4th 125.) A defendant may move to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. (Penal Code §1538.5(a)(1)(A).) Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 119; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (stating searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable unless subject to an established exception).) While the defendant has the initial burden of raising the warrantless search issue before the court, this burden is satisfied when the defendant asserts the absence of a warrant and makes a prima facie case in support. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 130.) Accordingly, when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence seized during a warrantless search, they also bear the burden in showing that an exception to the warrant applies. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 98 S.Ct. 2408; see also People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99.) Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should be suppressed. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 372 (stating unreasonable searches are invalid under Terry and should be suppressed).)

The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which was established in the seventeenth and eighteenth century English common law. Aside from the rest of the amendments in the Bill of Rights the Fourth Amendment can be traced back to a strong public reaction from some cases back in the 1760s. Two of these cases happened in England and one case happened in the colonies. These cases involved some pamphleteers who would pass out pamphlets to the public in order to spread their word around. These pamphlets however ridiculed the king and his ministers. After finding this out the king issued warrants to have the pamphleteer’s homes ransacked and stripped of all their books and papers. Even back then the pamphleteers knew that their rights

Explain the details of what the Fifth Amendment provides citizens and its use of it in the 2012 Meningitis Outbreak?

This Amendment was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and was ratified by the states December 15, 1789. It is a part of the Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments of the Constitution.