Talk:Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Eminent Domain Section[edit]

I know you don't have to incriminate yourself but how about if someone was there and possibly witnessed the activity? Does the witness have to talk if questioned? I know about the lawyer situation....Just wondering if the witness can choose not to speak at all. Please let me know at (email removed) Thanks for your help. 10/10/2006

The Fifth Amendment protects only from self incrimination, if you aren't being asked to incriminate yourself, then it offers no protection. It has been ruled that it does not allow "taking the fifth" to protect another. A person who is known to have witnessed may be compelled to testify and arrested for obstruction of justice if they do not. The reality is that a person can simply claim to have forgotten and its almost impossible to prove a person is deliberately withholding testimony

Could that be revised slightly to have not just an NPOV but a realistic one too? A lot of it basically slants to the Kelo side of the recent decision. Unless there is actual proof that there's a plan to take all the church land. --RobbieFal 07:06 1 July 2005 (UTC) it is double jeopardy

It's a Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination[edit]

I've notice that a couple of new users have been changing the text to read Fifth Amendment "right" rather than Fifth Amendment "privilege" -- possibly under a mistaken perception about how the term "privilege" is being used here in a technical legal sense. The word "privilege" is used here in the sense of an evidentiary privilege -- not in the sense in which people normally use the term.

When we were kids, we may have heard a parent or teacher say something like: "Driving is a privilege, not a right. Your privilege can be taken away from you if you don't do your homework" or whatever. I think that may be the source of the confusion. When Mom used the term "privilege" that way, she was using it to mean something quite different.

The correct term is "Fifth Amendment privilege." Famspear (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

GOD BLESS AMERICA — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added a link in the lead to clarify this item. jxm (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

"Just Compensation"[edit]

This section references 3 court cases but offers only 2 quotes. It is unclear which quotations belong to which cases.

It looks reasonable that the first quotation belongs to the first case mentioned, but then it's followed by a court case reference. I do not have the legal research abilities to confirm which decisions contained which quotes before editing for clarity.

Current text

In United States v. 50 Acres of Land (1984), the Supreme Court wrote that "The Court has repeatedly held that just compensation normally is to be measured by "the market value of the property at the time of the taking contemporaneously paid in money." Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246 (1934) ... Deviation from this measure of just compensation has been required only "when market value has been too difficult to find, or when its application would result in manifest injustice to owner or public." United States v. Commodities Trading Corp., 339 U.S. 121, 123 (1950).

Tzimnoch (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Due Process, anyone?[edit]

Is there a reason why the Due Process section is empty, save the main article link? It there's no objection, I'll add a few summary sentences. jxm (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Actual text? Hard to make heads or tails of this mess.[edit]

There's a Text section that says "as proposed by", but it doesn't say this is the actual text. I *assume* it is, but…

Then there's the following section that says "His draft language that later became the Fifth Amendment" which first makes one think it is the text but then says it was edited. --jae (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)