![[mccookgazette.com]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/nameplate31.png)
|
|
Fair ~ High: 87°F ~ Low: 57°F Wednesday, May 16, 2012 |
|
Fifth Amendment anyone?Posted Monday, May 11, 2009, at 11:22 AM
This morning I was surfing the internet when I came to an interesting little website on it called www.thefoxnation.com. Basically it is a sight about Fox News and smearing everything liberal. They use the Fox News slogan of "We Report, You decide" but when you actually read through their stories there is little reporting and the reader actually deciding. Most of the stories are actually opinion pieces and then much like on this website readers can respond.
Once particular article caught my attention right off the bat and was entitled "Chrysler deal violates 5th Amendment". When I clicked on the link I was taken to a new website where the article actually was(http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/04/senior-creditors-chrysler-deal-violates-5th-amendment/). After reading the article and then reading the actual text on the 5th Amendment. These people have no idea what's in the Constitution. The 5th Amendment is the amendment that protects us most in a court of law. It protects us from being charged more than once for the same crime and it helps us from incriminating ourselves. There is a small portion at the end of the amendment which reads "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." but the writer(s) of this article are taken that part of the amendment way of context. The entire amendment is about court cases so one would infer that when the last part is talking about private property and public use would of course occur in a court of law. Chrysler was not taken over in a court of law. It was taken over by the federal government so that it would not go bankrupt. Also, Chrysler isn't even a private company, before or after the take over so that pretty much blows that conclusion out of the water. Basically, what my point is, a lot of people on the right like to make the claims that liberals in this country are destroying the constitution as fast as we can. If this article is any indication to the understanding that some on the right have concerning the Constitution then now I have a little better understanding of why they think the Constitution is being ruined instead of returned to its former glory (which it is) ... they don't understand what the document is. Comments Showing most recent comments first [Show in chronological order instead] |
Hot topics A Case Against Merit Pay(12 ~ 6:08 PM, Mar 2)
Hot Springs, America's First National Park
President Obama's Speech
A Most Disgusting Lie
Republicans and the Far-Right Have Hit Rock Bottom
|
Email link
Read comments (1)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
The way I've always read the 5th amendment, self incrimination, due process and double jeopardy aside, it's what grants the powers of eminent domain. "Public use" would be the reason for which the property was taken. For example, the federal government using eminent domain to purchase a property for building a public road system. Eminent domain proceedings are carried out in a court of law as are most things the government does. Of course, eminent domain is not listed specifically and a person could make a legal argument based on the 5th amendment but the government would need to prove "just compensation" was given or they would have to show that they did not take control of Chrysler and the property owned by Chrysler and its shareholders. Private property can be defined in a court of law as any property held by a private individual or any non-government entity.
"Chrysler was not taken over in a court of law. It was taken over by the federal government so that it would not go bankrupt."
I don't think that plan worked out so well. Now, they have to file for Chapter 11 which they could have done months ago before we sank billions more into this company.
Chrysler needs investors and giving the union a complimentary majority share in the company does nothing to benefit the financial stability of the company. I haven't spoken out too much about the auto bailouts other than what a waste of money I think they've been but this level of government control goes beyond what I am comfortable with. Shareholders are being bullied into taking losses and criticized for not giving up their shares because they are hoping that the company will rebound at some point, a large financial contributor to Obama's campaign is receiving a majority stake in this company and banks are being forced to take losses not through any bankruptcy proceedings but through the influence of the government outside of any court of law.