“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Tenth Amendment
The Ninth Amendment
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The Eighth Amendment
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
The Seventh Amendment
“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
The Sixth Amendment
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
The Sixth Amendment sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It indicates that people have the right to a jury trial in civil suits exceeding $20. And that they have the right to Assistance of Counsel.
The movie Gideon's Trumpet told the story of of Clarance Earl Gideon and the court-case of Gideon vs. Wainwright. Gideon was accused of breaking into a pool room and stealing some wine, beer, cigarettes, coca-cola, and change from the register. When the pool hall was robbed, a man standing outside said that he saw Gideon leave with a bottle of wine. Later, when Gideon was questioned by the a policeman, he was carrying a lot of change in his pockets. Gideon was arrested at that time. On the day of his trial, Gideon did not have a lawyer. He asked the judge to appoint him a lawyer but his request was denied. This was because Florida law stated that only defendants in capitol cases would be appoint a lawyer unless it was a special circumstance. After he was denied his request for a lawyer he had no choice but to represent himself. He tried to defend himself, to no avail. He was not able to prove to the jury that he was not guilty and they proceeded to convict him. The judge sentenced him to five years in prison because he had four prior convictions. While in prison, he studied the law to try gain enough knowledge to appeal his conviction. He believed that he had an unfair and unconstitutional trial.
The Fifth Amendment
“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.”
The Fifth Amendment basically says five things
1) No one can be tried for a serious crime unless indicted (accused) by a grand jury. 2) No one can be forced to testify against herself or himself. 3) No one can be punished without due process of law. 4) People must be paid for property taken for public use. 5) No Double Jeopardy
Massey Officials Plead The 5th In Mine Disaster Probe
October 29, 2010 by Howard Berkes
At least six officials at Massey Energy have asserted their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination as they declined to testify in a joint state and federal investigation into the deadly Upper Big Branch mine explosion in April. The officials include Elizabeth Chamberlin, Massey's vice president for safety, and Gary May, a foreman who worked at the Upper Big Branch mine before the explosion. Multiple witnesses who spoke with NPR named May as being involved in a February incident at Upper Big Branch in which a methane monitor was deliberately disabled. The Fifth Amendment pleas are contained in letters that each of the six Massey officials filed with a West Virginia court. The letters were first obtained by the Charleston Gazette. NPR has confirmed their existence and content. Chamberlin's letter accuses some investigators of abusing and bullying witnesses. "Ms. Chamberlin is blameless in this terrible tragedy that occurred at Upper Big Branch Mine," Chamberlin's letter asserts. "We will not subject her to the perils of this extraordinary and hostile process." The allegation that witnesses are abused is denied by Davitt McAteer, a former federal mine safety chief who leads an independent investigative team appointed by West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin. "The primary driving force of this investigation is to learn what happened so we can prevent more disasters from occurring," McAteer tells NPR. Refusing to testify in the investigation "is a disservice to these 29 [deceased] miners and to finding out what went wrong." The letters were sent by each individual Massey official and their company-provided attorneys. A spokesman for Massey Energy suggests the company is not involved in the decisions to withhold testimony. "Certain officials have elected not to participate in an interview process they believe to be unfair," says Shane Harvey, Massey's Vice President and General Counsel. "However, this will not prevent the Company from fully investigating the incident and sharing its findings with the public at large." All six letters question the integrity of the investigation, which is conducted jointly by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration, the West Virginia Office of Miners Health, Safety and Training, and McAteer's team. The letters also say West Virginia investigators are improperly exploiting their subpoena power so that federal investigators without that authority can question witnesses who are forced to testify. The subpoenaed Massey officials also cite the existence of a federal criminal probe and the sharing of interview transcripts with federal investigators as reasons to guard against self-incrimination. Gazette reporter Ken Ward also obtained a witness interview schedule naming five additional Massey officials who were supposed to testify this month. The schedule includes Jason Whitehead, who is now Massey Vice President for Underground Operations, and Chris Blanchard, an executive at the Massey subsidiary that operates Upper Big Branch. As NPR first reported, Blanchard and Whitehead spent four hours traveling nine miles underground immediately after the explosion. A Massey spokesman says they were trying to rescue miners but state and federal investigators have expressed concern about possible tampering with evidence. NPR has independently confirmed the existence and content of the witness interview schedule. Blanchard and Whitehead were listed as witnesses Wednesday (October 27), but sources familiar with the investigation say neither testified. In a statement, federal mine safety chief Joe Main said, "MSHA is confident that the government will find the cause of this horrible accident, whether or not certain Massey witnesses refuse to talk by invoking their 5th amendment constitutional right against self-incrimination." MSHA also said late Friday that approximately 15 upper level management officials at Massey Energy have exercised their right not to testify. The agency added it intends to use its subpoena power when it holds public hearings into the Upper Big Branch disaster. No hearing dates have been announced. About 250 witnesses have testified, according to sources, including many rank and file Massey workers. MSHA confirmed Friday that 247 witnesses have testified so far. A federal grand jury has also taken testimony as federal prosecutors consider possible criminal charges.
The Fourth Amendment
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Furthermore, probable cause is the standard by which a police officer has the authority to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. In Mapp v. Ohio, (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also ruled that certain searches and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly granted.
Case against school searches isn't frivolous
DAVID ISEMAN • The News-Leader • October 29, 2010
If you read about the lawsuit against Springfield schools recently, you might be thinking: "Geez that wacky Doug Burlison's at it again. Suing the schools just for trying to keep kids safe." "Talk about frivolous. And he's a city councilman — embarrassing." Check those thoughts, please. All of them. The 3-week-old federal lawsuit by Burlison and his wife, Mellony, claims the school district violated the Fourth Amendment by using Greene County deputies and their dogs to search for drugs and weapons without warrants or "individualized suspicion" at Central High School. It's not a joke or a ploy by any means. The Burlisons are serious. They have a serious lawyer. They have support from a very serious organization — the Virginia-based Rutherford Institute, which for a quarter-century has been fighting what it sees as infringement on civil liberties. It often keeps cases going to "terminal courts," as in as far as they can go, said the Burlisons' local attorney Jason Umbarger. You probably remember that name. He created a real fuss for the city of Springfield after he and an angry retired state trooper helped shut down all the red light cameras in the city. Doug Burlison realizes he'll get flak for suing. But he hopes, in the long run, he'll be seen as righteous. "I was crazy when I went and got signatures for the (Springfield city) audit, too," he said of the popular, negative opinion at the time, adding, "After a while it became a good idea." In case you don't recall, the Burlisons' lawsuit came after an April maneuver with dogs, deputies and administrative staff at Central, which the Burlisons' kids attend. Kids were made to leave classrooms, but leave possessions behind. When they returned, it was clear, the kids say in the lawsuit, that someone had rummaged through some purses and backpacks. Dog drool was evident on some belongings. Schools Attorney Ransom Ellis III insists the deputies and school police didn't seize or search anything unless a "dog hit on it." He says it's well established in law that a school has the right to bring in dogs to sniff at inanimate objects in search of drugs and weapons, in the greater interest of school safety. The Burlisons think this was clearly a search, warrantless, without any sort of concrete suspicions established first. They also say it was a very bad message for kids. Umbarger says it this way: "We're teaching kids the exact opposite of what schools are mandated by law to teach our children." You know, he says, like in all those history and social studies classes about the Constitution and those pesky amendments. Some lament this lawsuit. I think it's a good thing — especially if the kids really follow it and get to dissect and discuss it in class. A teaching moment? For sure. By the way, the district defends its practices vociferously but has put similar maneuvers on hold. A serious matter? Yes. Just how grave might depend on how aggressive the Burlisons, their feisty lawyer and their freedom-fighting backers — who are paying for this suit — decide they want to get. David Iseman is the editorial page editor for the News-Leader, Springfield, Mo.
____
http://www.baxterbulletin.com/article/20101029/OPINION01/10290317
http://www.wethepeoplepolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/comebackwithawarrant.jpg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)