Can you put the fifth amendment into layman's terms for me?
828605
Presentment and Indictment - No one can be prosecuted without having first been indicted by a grand jury who has found that probably cause exist to believe the suspect committed the crime.\n\nSelf Incrimination - The state cannot coerce you to make statements about your guilt - the state must prove their case against you and cannot force you to do it for them.\n\nDouble Jeopardy - The state may not try someone multiple times for the same crime.\n\nDue Process - The government cannot deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without giving them a meaningful opportunity to be heard.\n\nGovernment Taking of Property - the government may take property from a private person but only to use it for a public purpose (e.g. build a road) and they must give the owner compensation (fair market value)
1118182
Often, this is because our Bill of Rights contains specific guarantees that make it impermissible to use some kinds of evidence.  For example, the Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect us from unreasonable intrusions ("searches and seizures") done without a court's permission; that means a prosecutor can not use evidence obtained without the proper court permission, or even other evidence that was obtained because of the wrongly acquired information (the "fruit of the poison tree" doctrine).  The Fifth Amendment ensures us that we can not be forced to testify against ourselves; this means, for instance, that a person convicted of a crime can not be required to testify as a witness at his own trial.  The Bill of Rights was written by people who knew history, who knew that governments tend to increase their power at the expense of individuals, so they took special care to ensure that Americans would have individual liberty.  It is most necessary to "stack the deck" in favor of the individual when a person is standing trial, with money, or freedom, or life itself at stake.
573914
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.\n\nThe Fourth Amendment was intended to protect against arbitrary arrests as well as against unreasonable searches was early assumed by Chief Justice Marshall 55 and is now established law.
872660
The Patriot Act itself only intrudes on some areas of privacy. That's bad enough, but it doesn't, in and of itself, take away any constitutional rights.\n\nThe problem is that many in power (at least, as of Monday) felt that constitutional protections can and should be ignored, if they might possibly result in people being safer. However, that's unconstitutional, by definition. \n\nWe only have those rights we can defend. And only those freedoms we choose to defend. Once we have abandonded those rights and those freedoms, they are lost. Once, and for all of us.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\nIn honor of Pastor Martin Niemöller:\n\nFirst they came for the 6th Amendment, but I hadn't been accused of a crime, so I didn't object to denial of counsel.\n\nThen they came for the 4th Amendment, but I wasn't talking to anyone overseas, so they wouldn't be monitoring me.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 4th Amendment, but I only called my mother, so there was nothing suspicious in my phone records.\n\nThen they came for the 1st Amendment, but I never associated with criminals, so I didn't worry about being convicted purely based on what other people might do.\n\nThen they came for the 14th Amendment, but I never really understood the rules for Due Process (and wasn't allowed an attorney), so I didn't object.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 1st Amendment, but I never told anyone about what the government was doing, so again I remained silent.\n\nThen they came for the 5th Amendment,  ......  and I no longer had the right to remain silent.
653212
From memory:\n\n[I] Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall congress impose any restraints on speech, nor of the press, nor of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.\n\n[II] A well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\n\n[III] No troops shall be quartered in private homes during time of peace, without consent of the owner, nor during time of war except as may be prescribed by law.\n\n[IV] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, documents and effects shall not be infringed; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the places to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\n\nI know that the 5th Amendment includes the right against self-incrimination, against government taking without just compensation, the due process clause, plus a couple other protections I can't remember right now. The 6th guarantees right to a speedy and public trial, right to a jury in criminal trials, and right to counsel in criminal trials. The 7th includes right to a jury in civil trials over a certain amount. The 8th includes the prohibition against excessive bail, and against torture.\n\n[IX] The enumeration of certain rights herein shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.\n\n[X] Any powers not expressly granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, shall be reserved  for the states and for the people.\n\nThat's it from memory. Then I looked it up. I got some detail wording wrong on all of them, forgot that the prohibition in 4 is only against unreasonable searches, missed the grand jury and double jeopardy clauses of the 5th, the confrontation and notice clauses of the 6th, and it's "cruel and unusual punishment" for the 8th. Oh well, back to studying.
67577
You're correct. \n\nThe Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights is \n"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."
58970
With all due respect, your stated desire doesn’t make any sense.  The ten articles of the United States Bill of Rights are written in clear language with most economical use of the language.  There are only 462 words of content in all ten amendments.\n\nIt would be interesting to know what is your intended use.  In my seminars I find that rather than summarize them I have to expand from both a origin perspective as well as from a case law perspective.  To do less is to cloud them in misunderstandings.     \n\nIf this is a class project, have your instructor contact me and I'll explain why this is not possible, something the instructor should already know.
963100
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
898347
The Bill of Rights tell you what  rights as a private citizen of this country you're entitled to.\n The Constitution tells how the government is formed,the different branches and levels of government. And,how it works explaining what it can and cannot do.\n Some of the rights I enjoy are "The right to assemble". \n                                                       "The right to keep and bear arms".\n                                                       "The right to trial by jury". Over the years, I've met several people on the Net and some of them have told me that they wished that their governments allowed  a trial by jury. I tell them that most people in this country avoid jury duty like as if it was a plague and an inconvenience of their time. If you don't use it,you WILL lose it.
315516
Here is one...\n\nhttp://www.usconstitution.net/const.html\n\nIt covers the entire consitution.  Each amendment has it's own link.\n\nHere is a summary:\nAmendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression \nAmendment 2 - Right to bear Arms \nAmendment 3 - Quartering of soldiers \nAmendment 4 - Search and Seizure \nAmendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings \nAmendment 6 - Right to speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses \nAmendment 7 - Trial by jury in civil cases \nAmendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual punishment \nAmendment 9 - Construction of Constitution \nAmendment 10 - Powers of the States and People \nAmendment 11 - Judicial Limits \nAmendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice President \nAmendment 13 - Slavery Abolished \nAmendment 14 - Citizenship Rights \nAmendment 15 - Race no bar to vote \nAmendment 16 - Income Tax authorized \nAmendment 17 - Senators elected by popular vote \nAmendment 18 - Liquor abolished \nAmendment 19 - Women's suffrage \nAmendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional terms \nAmendment 21 - Amendment 18 repealed \nAmendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits \nAmendment 23 - Presidential vote for District of Columbia \nAmendment 24 - Poll taxes barred \nAmendment 25 - Presidential disability and succession \nAmendment 26 - Voting age set to 18 years \nAmendment 27 - Congressional pay increases
1159593
Absolutely not.  My favorite, if not the best, example would be the thousands of gun control laws on the books.  These are clearly in violation of the 2nd Amendment which states quite clearly (in easy-to-understand, one- and two-syllable English words) that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\n\nAnother example is the way the "necessary and proper" clause has come to mean "convenient."  When the Supreme Court can re-define words in the Constitution to mean whatever they want, then what's the point of having a Constitution in the first place?\n\nThe interstate commerce clause has been stretched to absurd proportions so that Congress can now regulate anything that it wants based on the fact that somebody, somewhere might have once traded with someone in another state.\n\nDoes anyone remember the 9th and 10th Amendments, which tell us that the federal government is only allowed to do those few things which are specifically stated in the Constitution?  And yet there are volumes upon volumes of federal statutes that micromanage our lives.\n\nThe American people, through ignorance and apathy, have allowed their government to get by with this.  I know of no solution.  If the people have more faith in legal interpretations and judges' rulings than in their own ability to understand the simple words written down where all can see, then they deserve the tyrannical, authoritarian state that they are destined to get.\n\nFinally, I want to add that I once took a college course called "Constitutional Rights and Liberties."  But the curriculum was focused not around what those rights and liberties are, but on what judges have said about them.  It was a study in case law.  When people are taught that case law is more important than what the Constitution actually says, the outcome is predictable.  We come to depend on the government to interpret for us the document that is supposed to limit its scope of power.  Isn't this like signing a lease with a landlord that says the landlord gets to decide at any point on any question what the lease says?  Isn't re-defining "necessary" to mean "convenient" analogous to re-defining "$400 per month" to mean "$600 per month?"
705035
its called self incrimination, and its when what you say would hurt your case. Take the 5th amendment in order to not incriminate yourself or others.
319650
Its an "implied right".  Its not in the constitution.
92357
Please don't be offended, and perhaps it's just the way you write, but you clearly don't have the facts of this situation correctly.  What you are claiming happened here is (assuming I can understand it), really very difficult to believe.  \n\nLet's do this:\n\nIf your friend, who was convicted of whatever it was, was represented by an attorney in any court in this country, I would strongly suspect his 6th amendment rights were not violated and if they were, his attorney would almost certainly be filing an appeal as we speak.\n\nOtherwise, you probably need someone to help you with your question because it's nearly impossible to understand.
1073901
The 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States;\n\nThe right of the people to be secure in thier persons, house, 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.\n\nThats how it reads, however it has been left to interpretation by any number of authorities. In my interpretation probable cause was required to obtain a warrant in order to search , not cause for search.......\n\nHowever there have been so many other changes to our Constitution that the original bill of rights is mostly just a memory, and has been used and abused by the crooked, the greedy and the power hungry for too long\n\nVOTE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION....\nso that "We the People" can retake our country and reinstate our freedoms\n\nPeace to all...now more than ever...
1001288
The 4th Amendment is the answer to your question.  There is cross-over with the 5th Amendment, as it deals with custodial interrogation (interviewing), and whether the person has been read Miranda rights, and/or asked for counsel.\n     The 4th Amendment deals with arrest, (and interrogation/interviewing), search, and seizure.  Seizure can be another way to say arrest, as that involves seizure of the person.  The 4th Amendment is brought to bear on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and guards against unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause/valid warrant.  There is MUCH more to know...follow the link below.\n     As stated, the 5h Amendment deals with the privilege against compelled self-incrimination, and the applicability of Miranda on statements made during custodial interrogation...type in 5th Amendment at www.findlaw.com for more information.  \n     The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial, voir dire proceedings, and addresses other fair trial issues.  Findlaw is a good source of information for all of the above.
1090487
It's shameful that we would need an amendment to remind the SCOTUS that the Forth Amendment means what the words say it means, the probable cause means probable cause and not reasonable suspicion and so on ... yet this seems to be the case.\n\nI'd definitely like an amendment that spells out the "Constitutional privacy" I learned about in High School Civics class. This Constitutional privacy was the other side of Constitutional obligation. The two of them together defined the limits of government power, something we today are in sore need of.\n\nObligation: If activity infringes your rights, then the government MUST act to protect your rights. If it refuses to do so, citizens can take the legislative and/or executive branches to court, where the judiciary can MAKE the government do its job.\n\nPrivacy: If your activity does NOT infringe on the rights of others, then the government MAY NOT interfere to curtail that activity. If it does, citizens can take the legislative and/or executive branches to court, where the judiciary can MAKE the government respect your right to privacy.\n\nNote on obligation: This does not mean that government can or should guarantee that you will never be robbed, only that government has an obligation to consider theft to be a crime and to take reasonable measures to prevent theft, to apprehend and punish theives.\n\nNote on privacy: There are cases where government can interfere in public activity, but must "butt out" where the activity is in private between consenting adults. Sexual behavior is a good example.\n\nNote on both: True, we have many laws that violate this principle. For instance, some say that "No beer sales on Sunday" violates this principle. That these laws have not (as yet) been successfully challenged and repealed does not negate the principle.