Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment dates back to the 17th century, in England. They used it to protect their citizens. It was designed to protect us just like it protected the people in England. It protects us against government authority in a legal procedure.Amendment 5 states, â€Å"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 completed 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.Question #1 What specific constituencies supported the provisions of this amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention? Who wer e they and why did they support it? The Federalists (James Madison) introduced and supported the provisions of the 5th amendment. Madison included a constitutional provision that an individual shall not â€Å"be compelled to be a witness against himself. † Congress added the words â€Å"in any criminal case†, meaning that the provision, which will become one of the Fifth Amendment’s clauses providing safeguards against abuse of criminal laws.Because the idea that double jeopardy was wrong was so widely upheld by the colonists, James Madison also presented the Double Jeopardy Clause to Congress. Question #2 Were there any groups or persons that were against the inclusion of this amendment (or any part of it)? Who were they and why did they not support it? There were not any groups or persons that were against the inclusion of the 5th Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Question #3 Were there any changes or modifications proposed that were not included in the amendment? Who or what constituencies supported or opposed the proposed changes?Why? Many representatives rose to argue that Madison’s wording of the Double Jeopardy Clause was not strong enough. Madison had worded his Double Jeopardy Clause like this, â€Å"No subject shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment, or trial for the same offense. † Some representatives argued that the phrase â€Å"or trial† would prevent people from receiving a retrial if they had convicted improperly in their first trial. Eventually the phrase was left out, and the Congress and the States voted to make the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause, as we know it, law.Question #4 What (if any) were the historical causes for this amendment to be important enough to be included in the original Bill of Rights? The Fifth Amendment states that â€Å"No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. † This right was created in reaction to the British courts of equity in 1487. These courts were truth-seekers. The prosecutors did not have to prove the case instead they got proof from confessions out of the accused. The accused were required to answer any questions from the prosecutors at any time.The common law courts of England adopted the principle of nemo tenetur – that no man should be bound to accuse himself. The right to be free from self-incrimination was established in common law throughout most of the colonies before it appeared in the US constitution. Question #5 Have there been any attempts to change or repeal this amendment through the years? When and by whom? Who or what constituencies supported or opposed the changes or attempts at repeal? Why? SOURCE 1 (http:/www. enotes. com/american-court-case) The 1887 Act of Congress allowed the government to compel an individual to testify against himself.Counselman vs. Hitchcock 1882. In 1891 Charles Counselman, a grain businessman was brought before the court for violation. The Chicago court requested it mandatory that Charles answer certain questions; Counselman refused on the grounds of self-incrimination. The Supreme Court, with Justice Blatchford giving the opinion, declared the 1887 law as related to the Fifth Amendment is not of the Bill of Rights. Source 2 (www. blackwellreference. com/public/tocnode The California State law granted power to prosecute any criminal defendants who exercise his or ‘her right to silence’, by interpreting the silence as an inference of guilt.In 1965 in the Griffin vs. California, Dean Griffin was accused of murder. In the court Griffin refused to speak. His silence was ruled as an acknowledgement of guilt and Griffin was sentenced on those grounds. The Supreme Court, with Justice Douglas giving the ruling, declared that inferring that a person’s right to remain silent is to be deemed guilty is changing the Fifth to suit the court. Source3 (ht tp;/ www. lectlaw. com/files) California State instituted the law of â€Å"Immunity† which compels an individual to testify against himself, with the guarantee that it will not be used to prosecute him.In 1972, Kastigar vs. United States, Charled Kastigar refused to reply even though he was given the guarantee. The California law was qualifying the Fifth Amendment’s right to be silent. The Supreme Court Judge Powell delivered the opinion, which granted â€Å"Use Immunity† which was compatible with the Fifth Amendment. Use Immunity would not allow anything that was given in testimony to be used as evidence for prosecution, nor in any other succeeding case against the defendant. Question #6 Are there currently any constituencies that want this amendment changed, abbreviated, expanded or repealed?Who would support such changes and why? Who would oppose such changes and why? In 2007 George W. Bush issued an executive order that effectively destroyed the Fifth Amendm ent. This executive order that he signed claimed that he has the power to seize the property of any person who undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq. Bush declared that he can take people’s property without due process if the government determines in some way that a person is undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq.