Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

Walberg, Paul introduce civil asset forfeiture legislation
Senator Rand Paul and Representative Tim Walberg reintroduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act (FAIR Act) today, legislation to protect the righ...

By: RepWalberg

The rest is here:
Walberg, Paul introduce civil asset forfeiture legislation - Video

CRJ 306 WEEK 3 DQ 1 FIFTH AMENDMENT
http://www.seetutorials.com/crj-306/crj-306-week-3-dq-1-fifth-amendment/

By: Charles Lowe

Excerpt from:
CRJ 306 WEEK 3 DQ 1 FIFTH AMENDMENT - Video

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland removed from the constitution a controversial reference to the "special position" of the Roman Catholic Church as well as recognition of certain other named religious denominations. It was effected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1972 which was approved by referendum on 7 December 1972 and signed into law on 5 January 1973.

In drafting the Irish constitution in 1936 and 1937, amon de Valera and his advisers chose to reflect what had been a contemporary willingness by constitution drafters and lawmakers in Europe to mention and in some ways recognise religion in explicit detail. This contrasted with many 1920s constitutions, notably the Irish Free State Constitution of 1922, which, following the secularism of the initial period following the First World War, simply prohibited any discrimination based on religion or avoided religious issues entirely.

De Valera, his advisers (Fr. John Charles McQuaid, the future Archbishop of Dublin), and the men who put words to de Valera's concepts for the constitution (John Hearne and Mchel Grobhtha) faced conflicting demands in his drafting of the article on religion.

De Valera's solution was Article 44. In contemporary terms, it marked a defeat for conservative Catholics, and Pope Pius XI explicitly withheld his approval from it:

Though perceived in retrospect as a sectarian article, Article 44 was praised in 1937 by leaders of Irish Protestant churches (notably the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin) and by Jewish groups. Conservative Catholics condemned it as "liberal".

When the contents of Article 44 were put to Pope Pius XI by Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (then Cardinal Secretary of State, later Pope Pius XII), the pope stated in diplomatic language: "We do not approve, nor do we not disapprove we will remain silent".[citation needed] It was said that the Vatican was privately more appreciative of the constitution, and Pius XII later praised it.[1]

By 1972 an article once condemned by critics as liberal and indeed by some as offensive to Catholicism, had come to be seen as out of place, dated, and potentially discriminatory to Protestants. The "special position" of the Catholic Church had granted to that church, albeit in an undefined manner, was a special status that was out of step with post-Vatican II Catholic thinking on the relationships between the churches. The Protestant churches, though they had declined in adherents, were more outspoken and willing to express their unhappiness than they had been in the Ireland of the 1920s and 1930s, when many were fearful that criticism of the Irish state would be seen as criticism of Irish independence and so implicitly a preference for the British regime that had ruled Ireland before 1922.

In addition, in the rapprochement between Northern Ireland and what was by then known as the Republic of Ireland, many southerners perceived the "special position" as a barrier between a north-south relationship and even a potential source of discrimination against minorities. In addition the explicit recognition of certain denominations was seen as unnecessary because of the provisions Article 44.2, which contains guarantees of freedom of worship and against religious discrimination. Though the changes shown above are those made to the English-language version of the constitution, constitutionally it is the Irish text that takes precedence.

This Fifth Amendment was introduced by the Fianna Fil government of Jack Lynch and supported by every other major political party. The Catholic Church did not voice any objection to the amendment, but it was opposed by some conservative Catholics. Some leading members of the Church of Ireland and the Jewish Community said during the campaign that while they appreciated the Article's recognition of their existence (and in the case of the Jewish Community, their right to exist, in contrast to anti-Jewish laws in other states) in 1937, it was no longer needed in the 1970s and had lost its usefulness.

The referendum on the amendment occurred on the same day as the referendum on the Fourth Amendment which lowered the voting age to eighteen. The Fifth Amendment was approved by 721,003 (84.4%) in favour and 133,430 (15.6%) against.

Follow this link:
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland - Wikipedia ...

The History Of The Fifth Amendment

By: Top Trusts Estate Law

Original post:
The History Of The Fifth Amendment - Video

The Kentucky Republican becomes the second of his party's 2016 presidential contenders to publicly oppose Lynch's confirmation as Eric Holder's replacement as head of the Justice Department, joining Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

Paul is the first Republican outside the Senate Judiciary Committee to oppose Lynch, the U.S. attorney in Brooklyn who is seeking to become the first African-American woman to serve as attorney general.

"Mrs. Lynch has a track-record of violating the individual freedoms granted to us by our Constitution," he said in a statement. "She considers civil asset forfeiture to be a 'useful tool,' while I consider it to be an infringement on the Fifth Amendment. She remains non-committal on the legality of drone strikes against American citizens, while I believe such strikes unequivocally violate rights granted to us by the Sixth Amendment.

"Mrs. Lynch also supports President Obama's calls for executive amnesty, which I vehemently oppose," Paul said. "The Attorney General must operate independent of politics, independent of the president and under the direction of the Constitution. I cannot support a nominee, like Mrs. Lynch, who rides roughshod on our Constitutional rights."

Republicans grilled Lynch about her stance on Obama's move to forestall some deportations during her confirmation hearing this month. Lynch said she sees the Justice Department's legal analysis backing the president's moves as reasonable.

Cruz has pushed Republicans to hold up Lynch's confirmation as a procedural move to gain leverage against Obama over immigration.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Texas) has said he'll support Lynch. But several of the committee's GOP members -- including Cruz, David Vitter of Louisiana, Jeff Sessions of Alabama and John Cornyn of Texas -- say they'll oppose her.

Marijuana, polygamy, torture: Lynch confirmation hearing

Read more:
Rand Paul opposes Loretta Lynch's confirmation

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky announced Wednesday night that he will vote against confirming Loretta Lynch for attorney general because of differences over civil liberties issues, declaring that her views ride roughshod on our constitutional rights.

Lynch, the U.S. attorney in Brooklyn, would be the first African-American woman to serve as attorney general.

Story Continued Below

Paul, a likely 2016 presidential candidate who has made criminal justice reform one of his signature issues, said in a statement: Mrs. Lynch has a track-record of violating the individual freedoms granted to us by our Constitution. She considers civil asset forfeiture to be a useful tool, while I consider it to be an infringement on the Fifth Amendment. She remains non-committal on the legality of drone strikes against American citizens, while I believe such strikes unequivocally violate rights granted to us by the Sixth Amendment.

Mrs. Lynch also supports President [Barack] Obamas calls for executive amnesty, which I vehemently oppose. The Attorney General must operate independent of politics, independent of the president and under the direction of the Constitution. I cannot support a nominee, like Mrs. Lynch, who rides roughshod on our Constitutional rights.

Paul first announced his opposition on Fox News On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.

The Kentucky senator appears to be the first Senate Republican who does not sit on the powerful Judiciary Committee, which is taking up Lynchs nomination to be the nations most powerful law enforcement official, to oppose her confirmation.

Several GOP senators on the committee have indicated they will oppose Lynch based on her support for the presidents executive actions on immigration. They include Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, another potential contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas the majority whip, and a member of the Judiciary Committee announced his opposition earlier Wednesday.

While she has an impressive record as United States attorney, as you know, she will become the chief advocate for the presidents policies as attorney general, the Republican said. Her testimony expressing support for the presidents unconstitutional executive action, and for her support for a number of the presidents other policies, make it impossible for me to vote for her nomination.

See the article here:
Paul to oppose Lynch for attorney general

The Best Way to Invoke the Fifth Ammendment
Visit legalproblem.com to discuss your case with one of our defense attorneys for FREE! If approached by an officer, always invoke your fifth amendment right to remain silent, it can save your life.

By: Clay Morgan

See the original post:
The Best Way to Invoke the Fifth Ammendment - Video

Paul, Walberg Introduce the FAIR Act
Senator Rand Paul and Representative Tim Walberg reintroduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act (FAIR Act) today, legislation to protect the rights of property owners and restore...

By: RepWalberg

Originally posted here:
Paul, Walberg Introduce the FAIR Act - Video

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks during the news conference to unveil the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act (FAIR Act), legislation to 'protect the rights of property owners and restore the Fifth Amendment's role in civil forfeiture proceedings' on Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2015.

Sen. Rand Paul has a low tolerance for low-flying objects.

Reacting Wednesday to the recent security scare at the White House where a quad-copter drone crashed on the South Lawn earlier this week the Kentucky Republican said he would have never put up with such a situation.

"If they fly over my house," Paul told CNN, referring to drones and drone operators, "they better beware because I've got a shotgun."

"Drones should only be used according to the Constitution," he added.

Paul, who many expect will launch a 2016 bid, made the comments in an interview with CNN conducted over Snapchat the first ever such occurrence with a lawmaker on the up-and-coming social media network.

His comments come just days after a two-foot-long helicopter-style drone crash-landed on the White House grounds, prompting a security lockdown of the premises and raising serious questions about presidential security.

A hobbyist later got in touch with authorities to notify them that it was his device and that he had merely been playing with it when it crashed.

The unnamed man, identified as an employee of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency by The New York Times, had reportedly been drinking before flying the craft later in the evening.

Originally posted here:
Sen. Rand Paul threatens to shoot drones with shotgun

Disappointed by the failure of last years medical marijuana amendment?

Well, it looks like were getting another and more secure chance, thanks to legislation filed Monday that would legalize medical marijuana for patients with certain conditions.

Last November we saw voters approval of medical marijuana in Florida; 57 percent voted in favor of the amendment. But thanks to another amendment to the state constitution approved in 2006, amendments must garner 60 percent of the vote in order to pass. As would only happen in Florida, that amendment passed with a yes from 57 percent of voters. Ironically, that particular majority rubber stamped an amendment ensuring any subsequent majorities of that size would be invalid.

Which is why, with a clear electoral majority, we are still without medical marijuana in Florida.

While we cant rectify our re-election of a man who was able to slither his way out of the largest fraud settlement in history only by invoking the Fifth Amendment 75 times we may have another shot at legal medical marijuana.

Our great green hope, in this case, comes in the form of St. Petersburg Sen. Jeff Brandes.

Interestingly, Brandes belongs to the Republican Party the party that so enthusiastically venerates Ronald Reagan, whose crusade against weed still earns him the ire of activists and stoners everywhere.

Maybe its because the times are changing; maybe its because of the broad support medical marijuana has in Florida. Maybe people saw the 23 states that allow medical marijuana havent yet descended into hellfire and ruin. Or perhaps it has something to do with cannabis proven ability to help the sick.

In fact, there already is a law on the books in Florida which recognizes this fact. Last year, a specific strain of marijuana, Charlottes Web, was legalized to treat seizures. The strain is famous in medical marijuana circles. Web has a potent amount of CBD, one of the two compounds in marijuana, but lacks THC. CBD produces calming, antipsychotic effects while THC is associated with the high. Charlottes Web actually used to be called Hippies Disappointment, before it was successfully used to treat a severely epileptic girl named Charlotte.

Unfortunately, this law hasnt cut the mustard. Its been so tied down by bureaucracy and challenges that the people who need Charlottes Web still arent able to get it. Brandes bill would cut through the obstacles, and provide marijuana to patients with other diseases.

Originally posted here:
New medical marijuana bill revives hope for sick Floridians