Everyone Is Worried About the 2nd; What About the 5th?

I get that many people firmly believe that the 2nd Amendment will protect us from tyranny, that if a showdown between we the people and the government were to take place that an armed citizenry will protect our freedom and the Constitution. It is a noble thought and perhaps that is why people are so passionate about the 2nd and perhaps why people are reactionary about it. I support the 2nd Amendment but I have to say that it has been rendered useless.

Thanks to advancement in military equipment and thanks to a budget that has catered to the MIC for decades and thanks to the militarization of Law Enforcement as well as the increased agencies of Law Enforcement an overt tyrannical push from our government would be easy for them and over for us in the blink of an eye.

Protect your 2nd Amendment rights always but, can we get some passion stirred up to protect our eroding 5th 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 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

Naomi Wolf writes regarding the lawsuit brought against the Obama Administration by concerned journalists worried about their freedom being lost should they be in contact with terrorists for journalistic reasons:

I was present in Judge Katharine Forrest's New York courtroom when she repeatedly asked Obama's lawyers if they could assure her that Section 1021 could not be used to detain people engaged in journalism or peaceful protest. The government's lawyers repeatedly refused to give her those assurances, or assurances that US citizens were not already being detained under the NDAA. Forrest ultimately blocked the implementation of the act.

Source

Once upon a time not so long ago a defense lawyer for a sitting President's Administration would have easily been able to stand up in court and state "Your honor, the Constitution of the United States guarantees any person detained on US soil, the right to due process (formal charges within 24 hours and trial by a jury of peers) and no law can supersede the Constitution". Yet, in an open federal court our President's lawyers could not offer one single assurance that it wouldn't or hadn't happened. As stated above, the judge ruled the offending part of the law (Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA) unconstitutional. Since then the Judges ruling has been appealed and a stay on her decision is in effect.

Naomi Wolf goes on to write:

But the US government appealed the ruling. In October, a court agreed to stay the implementation of Forrest's injunction and hear the appeal. Afran has read the government's new brief for the case, and pointed out that the lawyers now argue that the NDAA won't be used to militarily detain individuals considered "independent journalists" or "independent" public advocates without charges or trial.

Yay for independent journalists?

Who is considered an "independent journalist"? Afran noted, for example, that journalists associated with an outlet – like Bob Woodward – would not be considered "independent journalists", but self-employed or unemployed journalists are (though, in journalism, contracts and associations are much more complicated than that). He also added that almost all advocates are not "independent", as they are part of a movement or group with a philosophy. So, in the government's brief, the lawyers have gone even further than they did before in corralling new types of individuals who can legally be detained indefinitely without a civil trial.

There is no such thing as an "independent journalist" and what about the rest of us who aren't "independent journalists" anyway? What if I go to a protest and the person next to me decides to be a moron and hurls a molotov cocktail at a police line (by the way that is now ridiculously considered by law, an act of terror) but one of the cops doesn't like me so he swears I was the one who threw it, I get arrested and because it was an "act of terror" I go straight from the police station and into military detention... I never get to plead my case to a jury of my peers, I get to stand before a military tribunal. How did that happen?

Senator Feinstein has been one of a small handful of elected officials to speak out against the Indefinite Detention provisions of the NDAA... I should say HAD.

To make matters worse, a recent development sees the threat of the NDAA on US citizens increasing. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein recently introduced an amendment to the 2013 NDAA, which, at first, seems to protect Americans' due process – but, on closer examination, can be easily misinterpreted. Afran said that the Feinstein amendment "puts a gloss" on a very dangerous situation,

"First of all, the Feinstein amendment does not say that people in the US can't be put into military custody. It simply says they can't be taken into indefinite military custody without 'trial'. If they are taken into military custody, they have to be given a trial of some sort – but not due process in a civil court. The [kind of] trial this refers to would be … military tribunals. So the Feinstein amendment does virtually nothing for American citizens or people in the United States in terms of protection."

The original law at least left the issue of military detention somewhat ambiguous, but this amendment actually makes matters worse by explicitly allowing the military to take Americans into custody. The measure infringes on Americans' constitutional rights, asserts Afran, who explained that, since 1861, the US supreme court has written in at least four decisions that "people living in the US – citizens or not – cannot be taken into military custody and denied a trial in civil courts." Unfortunately, should the NDAA go through, this becomes the law of the land:

"Our system says a law is in force unless a court says otherwise. The president is considering vetoing the bill. We don't know if it will be passed by the House, then signed by the president. If it is, we may have to go back to the trial court."

Can we get a 'from my cold dead hands' vibe going for the 5th?

reply to post by Kali74

How about the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights?

If you take away the second amendment all of the other amendments are immediately up for debate.

Martial law will negate "due process" and civilian torture (water boarding) will likely be used to force you to testify against yourself (in interrogations - not necessarily in a court) if you are hiding contraband or information.

reply to post by SpaDe_


The 2nd Amendment is useless in a government take over scenario. It won't be taken away because there's no need to take it away.

I agree with you on the premise of the constitution as a whole should be protected. As for the who has the biggest gun idc ill take my chances.

Just out of curiosity, but could someone (whoever knows) post a list of all the laws the Obama admin have passed that are against the Consititution?

Off the top of my head, I know he did the indefinate detention and made protesting a felony if the secret service is present (now it looks like it will be the 2nd Amendment too). But when I'm talking to anyone about this, I wanna be able to actually mention the bills or laws that mention this.

Originally posted by SpaDe_
If you take away the second amendment all of the other amendments are immediately up for debate.

Already happened, the 18th amendment was withdrawn via the 21st . Now the subject matter is inconsequential. What matters i principle. In principle ANYTHING can change and those changes can be repealed.

This means all those cries of "it can't be done,....the constitiution.....my rights....." blah blah blah. do not recognise that things do and have changed.

Is time for another change to add to the twenty+ existing amendments ?

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by SpaDe_

 

The 2nd Amendment is useless in a government take over scenario. It won't be taken away because there's no need to take it away.

With that logic the same can be said for all of the others then correct?

reply to post by GRS1234


That is your right. I understand the go down fighting thinking. I think we are a very long way off, if it ever comes, from anything overt. Ultimately we are powerless if it should ever happen, but, we have the power now to restore what's been lost. We should not be passive about anyone, including those we think might be terrorists (the real kind), being denied due process.

Originally posted by yorkshirelad

Originally posted by SpaDe_
If you take away the second amendment all of the other amendments are immediately up for debate.

Already happened, the 18th amendment was withdrawn via the 21st . Now the subject matter is inconsequential. What matters i principle. In principle ANYTHING can change and those changes can be repealed.

This means all those cries of "it can't be done,....the constitiution.....my rights....." blah blah blah. do not recognise that things do and have changed.

Is time for another change to add to the twenty+ existing amendments ?

You are referring to prohibition being added and then removed. Not the same thing. Nice try though.

reply to post by SpaDe_


No because we still have the power to fight it. Being passionate about only one is a distraction and flawed thinking, in my opinion.

Originally posted by SpaDe_
If you take away the second amendment all of the other amendments are immediately up for debate.

That is the most important aspect to all of this that people fail to grasp.

I wrote a thread entitled "When will we ever learn?" and tried to get people to see that giving up our Constitutionally protected rights only leads to the removal of other rights.

On 9/11 people were angry and screaming from the top of their lungs for the Government to do whatever necessary to protect us from such a tragedy ever striking US soil again. We wanted revenge, we wanted protection, we wanted action.

Now, more than a decade later, we are still fighting in the Middle East, our phones can be tapped, our emails read, our every move watched by an entire network of cameras. Every bit of which gets lumped into the Patriot Act. How many people thought that ten years ago we would be subjected to full body Xrays in airports and random searches before boarding a subway?

Further, the first piece of legislation brought forth concerning gun restrictions had nothing to do with assault weapons and instead focused on high-capacity magazines. Which, by the way, has created the conversation about what number constitutes high capacity. Is it 5, 10, 50?

Not to mention that the FBI states that in order for a crime to be labeled mass murder, four victims are needed. Four. You can kill four people relatively quickly with any gun, even a crossbow.

Finally, twice as many mass murders were committed with semi-automatic handguns, not assault rifles. Banning assault weapons will be the crack that allows the floodwaters to rush in in my opinion.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by SpaDe_

 

No because we still have the power to fight it. Being passionate about only one is a distraction and flawed thinking, in my opinion.

I am not passionate about just one, but the one I am the most passionate about is the one that comes under fire the most often. Good luck fighting for the others if we lose the second by the way.

reply to post by SpaDe_


I'm not in anyway saying that you shouldn't protect the 2nd, I'm saying that one is in tact and one is not can we get a little passionate about the one we are actually losing?

reply to post by yorkshirelad


Well of course the Constitution can be changed, but it's a pretty long difficult process... as it should be. The subverting of the 5th Amendment is being done with another law. No law is supposed to negate or circumvent anything in the Constitution.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by SpaDe_

 

I'm not in anyway saying that you shouldn't protect the 2nd, I'm saying that one is in tact and one is not can we get a little passionate about the one we are actually losing?

I apologize, I have been in defense mode with all that has been going on, and yes you are correct we should be more passionate about the erosion of any of our rights and freedoms. I will look into this matter a little more and see if there is anything that I can constructively contribute to the cause.

I'm on board with the 'from my cold dead hands vibe' here.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far some of these representatives will go to subvert our liberties. It also is the same with how gullible the vast majority of people are when it comes to retaining those freedoms. The free American citizen is assaulted from all sides and though, fight as we do, we are continuously made to retreat further and further, as many more laws are created under the guise of security and safety.

Our current situation appears to be one where our government acts in a de facto manner. They have the acting power and abuse it at almost every turn. It is plain to see, if one opens their eyes wide enough. Our constitution is supposed to be law of the land, yet it is challenged all the time. Sometimes, our judicial system sides with it, others not. (Patriot Act, Federal Reserve Act, etc etc..)

Our problem, IMO lies deeply embedded inside the core of our system, and standing against single issues is a great way to prevent further destruction of our liberties and freedoms, but we mustn't forget that, unless something is done at the heart of this system, we will win one fight but lose another two or three, while fighting for the first.

The OP is as correct as it gets about this issue and loosing the right of due process cannot happen. Our 'right' of being protected by due process of law must remain unchanged as without it any offense such as being found with a 'high' capacity magazine, or voicing your opinion about an issue could conceivably constitute their justification to sweep you away to military tribunal.

It may be 'their' intent to use this for internment camps against foreign entities if war ensues for the protection of the citizens to prevent another attack against the American people, but are we willing to take the chance it will not be used against us directly to quell our voices indirectly? We must remain vigilant and be as energetic against any issues against our rights, all of them, for once they are lost to the powers that be, they are lost forever.

So in the name of freedom, I too implore us to stand together for the right of due process.

There is an all out assault on the Constitution.

They have gutted the 4th, and the 8th. They are looking to gut the 5th, after they're done with that they'll use the WBC to gut the 1st, and to make sure we can't fight back they are in the process of getting the 2nd.

The worst part is, they have convinced the American people that this is good for America.

It's disgusting.

ETA:

The 9th and 10th are null and void because democrats and republicans have convinced everyone that states rights are racist.

Next you'll see a gutting of the 3rd so that the DHS can use your house for anti-constitutionalist operations.

reply to post by projectvxn


I would agree about the war on the constitution and believe it to be based upon the assumption of it being written by men who had 'no-idea' of what America would become in the 200+ years it has been here. The current complexity of our society deems it necessary for us to hold it in even higher regard now than before as our system teeters upon social, racial, economic tensions.

We must remain steadfast in our beliefs, but that alone is useless. Unless we are able to muster our forces into a unified voice, we shall lose our constitution altogether.

The ability of the populace to defend against a government as powerful as ours has been stated and if transpires, would be awful for America. Our ability to resist the winds of change coming from behind Washington diminishes more so daily, for the people are forced to toil harder and have less time for any preventative measures against those forces.

How do we convey the necessity of the constitution and its urgency to be upheld, into a public that appears to be content with allowing the government dictate their lives by removing our protected liberties when most have the ill-conceived notion that liberties are granted by that very government?

[Disclaimer: I must openly state that I am not anti-government, just anti-tyrannical.]