i just found out that bush got rid of the fifth ammendment, but i have no idea what that means. can someone explain how that affects the ppl?
2007-07-20 09:36:42 · 14 answers · asked by blackx4life 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Uh, no, the President does not have the power to "get rid" of any amendment. That would take an act of 2/3 of both houses of congress. The 5th Amendment states:
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.
I'm guessing that you heard this from someone who thinks that Bush "disregarded" the 5th Amendment but you don't say why they are saying that. I think he's been accused of doing this several times since he's been President.
2007-07-20 09:44:50 · answer #1 · answered by Be me 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Reading on down a few people almost got it right and one person was right on with the numbers, but the fact is that the President can't get rid of an Ammendment. The Ammendment stays, what happens is that a new Ammendment is passed to over-ride the previous one, and this has only happened once in our history. It was with Prohibition. Not really good with the numbers, but it was something like the 18th that caused Prohibition and something like 20 that took it away. Both numbers remain on the books. It has to be ratified by the percentage of the house and senate and the states that were stated before by someone, I'm really bad with numbers, but I know that there was someone a little before I started writting who did have the correct percentages down.
2007-07-20 13:08:57 · answer #2 · answered by lochmessy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush can't (as much as he would like to) revoke any of the amendments. It would require a 3/4 majority of both the house and senate and a ratification by 3/4 of each of the states.
The 5th amendment to the United States Constitution is the right to due process and self-incrimination (You may have heard of a witness "pleading the 5th" - thiat witness is invoking the right not to say anything that might incrimnate himself).
What you heard was likely an statement about someone's opinion regarding the current policy of hoding "enemy combatants" in places like guatanamo bay without what the 5th amendment would term "due process."
Rightly or wrongly, some US courts have upheld this policy which essentially means, not that the 5th Amenedment has been repealed, but that it simply doesn't apply to some people under specific circumstances.
2007-07-20 09:50:16 · answer #3 · answered by Lafiite 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Really? I hadn't noticed that Mr. Bush convinced Congress to pass an amendment rescinding the Fifth, nor the states' legislatures ratifying such a thing? And I don't notice anyone being compelled to testify against themselves....in fact I don't see any violations of the Fifth at all by Mr. Bush.
Could this be just another B.S. Bush-bashing Moveondotorg propaganda message?
Yep.
2007-07-20 09:46:27 · answer #4 · answered by joustingwindmills 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, Bush didn't do anything wrong
He is surrounded by lawyers who are very thorough on how to take away Constitutional rights by using political loopholes that work and also deny responsibility for trampling rights at the same time.
It is a very clever scam.
After all, they managed to keep that retard in office for 8 years. Yes, they are very creative.
2007-07-20 10:26:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, Bush did not get rid of the 5th Amendment.
He's violated one provision of it, and most of the 4th and 6th.. But that was with the Gitmo detainees, not recent actions.
But people are drastically mis-representing his latest actions in freezing suspected terrorist funds, which are actually legal.
The meet the 4th Amendment seizure requirements, and there is no actual Takings (just freezing) so that clause isn't implicated.
2007-07-20 09:40:14 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It means that you should right away go out and move to Canada and begin the process of becoming a Canadian, because god knows, we don't need more people as stupid as you voting in the US.
oh and coragryph:
I believe its our government officials that decide whether or not the President has violated the Constitution and not a self-important prick like yourself
2007-07-20 09:48:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It means you have a very unreliable news source. We can blame the douche bag for many thing but that is not one of them. The person who was told you this was probably referring the the hate crime act. What you got was someone skewed point of view instead of a reliable news story.
2007-07-20 09:41:54 · answer #8 · answered by tender loving dyke 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It means that you are currently being watched by the CIA. If you are at home, I would lock my doors and draw the drapes. Make sure you are wearing your best undies because when they come to haul you in, you don't want to embarrass your momma with dirty or torn laundry.
2007-07-20 09:40:51 · answer #9 · answered by united9198 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Here - this is what we have lost
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 offence 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
2007-07-20 09:39:49 · answer #10 · answered by scottanthonydavis 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋