Rebiu Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 "Amendment V 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."Constitution of the United States What does this mean? "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" I read it to mean that people in the military are not due this protection. Can anyone dispute or confirm this interpretation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 Grand juries are not required to charge military war criminals with capital crimes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 The military is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, under which you give up certain rights that you have as a civilian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 Grand juries are not required to charge military war criminals with capital crimes... It's not quite that simple. The Fifth Amendment predates the concept of "War Criminal". The section refers to the justice system to be used depending on the situation. A soldier committing a crime in times of peace is subject to civil justice (grand jury) but in times of war he is subject to Military justice. An interesting point is that the section refers specifically to "land or naval forces" thereby leaving the Air Force without protection. Might be time for an amendment to the amendment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 An interesting point is that the section refers specifically to "land or naval forces" thereby leaving the Air Force without protection. Might be time for an amendment to the amendment? I wouldn't want to bank my life on that being a viable loophole, were I in the Air Force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Neither would I. Note however, that the concept of "United States Air Force" postdates WW2. I think that until some time in the 1950's it was still the "United States Army Air Force". It's possible that nobody has thought to look at the wording and get it changed. (Highly unlikely though.) I just find it interesting that the wording hasn't been moderised. You'd think the lawyers would have been on to it like a shot. Perhaps a Constitutional Court Ruling at some point decided the clause is applicable to all military personnel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 You'd think the lawyers would have been on to it like a shot. Perhaps a Constitutional Court Ruling at some point decided the clause is applicable to all military personnel? It would be seen to cover the airforce on two main grounds. Firstly the intent of the clause is clear. It was designed to cover military personel, the fact that the clause predates the existence of the airforce will not allow the airforces exclusion. Secondly, the mention of covering 'the militia' can be used as a catch all to include anyone bearing arms in the defence of the nation. Interesting question of semantics but no judge is going to allow that loop hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob000555 Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 The air force would be included under “militia”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyJoeCool Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 The air force would be included under “militia”. Not really. The Air Force is not Militia anymore than the army is. And, the point of "anyone with a gun is militia," it also says "when in actual service in time of war or public danger." So... If I went out and shot someone... it's not a "war crime" because I'm not in actual service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 The air force is "land or naval forces." They've got to land sometime, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyJoeCool Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 And the air force does have ground troups, and is concidered by some to be a part of the Navy (Carriers and whatnot). But I doubt that it really matters much... How does an aircraft commit a "non-war" crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 And the air force does have ground troups, and is concidered by some to be a part of the Navy (Carriers and whatnot). The Air Force does not fly off of aircraft carriers. The Navy has its own air wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 Ugh. Everyone attempting to interpret the literal meaning of the text in the Constitution alone and in and of itself, stop. There's over two centuries of Supreme Court case law you need to look over before you can begin to argue what a certain passage actually means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 What about that final clause, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"? Isn't that portion of my wage, private property, that is taken for public use, like welfare, a violation of this clause? I am not compensated for this in any way and certainly not justly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 What about that final clause, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"? Isn't that portion of my wage, private property, that is taken for public use, like welfare, a violation of this clause? I am not compensated for this in any way and certainly not justly. That's talking about "property" in the form of land. It's the basis for eminent domain power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 What about that final clause, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"? Isn't that portion of my wage, private property, that is taken for public use, like welfare, a violation of this clause? I am not compensated for this in any way and certainly not justly. It's not talking about money. If it were, it would be contradicting Congress's power to levy taxes, and for that matter government as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 So, my wages are not my private property? Who's property are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 I have never understood the principle behind "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". Anyone else who refuses to answer a question is charged with contempt of court, and I don't see why it should be any different for the accused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 So, my wages are not my private property? Who's property are they? They're not property. They're wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 They're not property. They're wages. I'd advise you not to take up law. property n. anything that is owned by a person or entity. Property is divided into two types: "real property' date='" which is any interest in land, real estate, growing plants or the improvements on it, [b']and "personal property" (sometimes called "personalty"), which is everything else.[/b] Legally, wages are property as is everything else a person owns... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 Oh really? "Everything else" is a legal definition? I suppose the Moon is my property then, and NASA owes me rent for Tranquility Base. Come on. You know perfectly well what is meant by the word, and you know perfectly well that the entire concept of government in a free and capitalistic society depends on our right to levy taxes on individuals. If you insist, the "compensation" is that you enjoy the rights and priveledges of a citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 Oh really? "Everything else" is a legal definition? I suppose the Moon is my property then, and NASA owes me rent for Tranquility Base. If you hadn't noticed that was a law dictionary I quoted from so yes. Lawyers consider anything you own to be personal property. You claim to own the moon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 I noticed it was from something called "law.com," yeah. I also noticed the definition was short and vague, and that legal definitions vary from place to place and time to time, making it necessarily inadequate. Also, it didn't even say "everything else you own," which leaves open my claim on the Moon. However, even if it did say so, that wouldn't help us, since it would basically be saying "property = what you own," which isn't a definition, just a renaming. However, since obviously the intent was always that taxes could be levied, I'd say it's completely safe to assume they didn't mean we can't ask for money from individuals without specific individual compensation. Non-individual compensation, i.e. that it be used for "the public good," certainly is a requirement, but it's also important to note that what constitutes "the public good" is up to our own (by proxy, in the form of publically elected officials) discretion, except in cases where it violates Constitutional law. One interpretation that occurs to me that might reconcile this alleged contradiction is that the clause refers to specific property, as opposed to generalized property. In other words, I can ask everyone to give something in accordance with some predetermined formula. However, asking one specific guy to give his farm is different, since it applies only to him and is therefore unjust, and requires specific compensation. As for why money is unique and the only thing that is, in general terms, demanded from us, is that perhaps it's the only thing that can be given in fair proportions. That is to say, a dollar is a dollar, but every piece of land is different, hence any giving of the latter is necessarily specific and not general. Hence "property" is meant as specific property, e.g. land, physicals goods, etc. That's just off the top of my head, though, and it occurs to me that there may be exceptions or grey areas, like mandatory military service. (Although I suppose drafted soldiers get paid....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 I believe the original intent of the word was "real property," going by that definition of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I believe the original intent of the word was "real property," going by that definition of it. It's usually interpretted that way but you can toss it out as I did and usually rouse any liberals about the place claiming that you can't read it like I suggested. Amendment 16 actually grants the power to lay and collect taxes, superceeding the interpretation I suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now