Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-22-2013, 07:46 PM
 
Location: High Cotton
6,125 posts, read 7,475,771 times
Reputation: 3657

Advertisements

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-22-2013, 07:47 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,210,872 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
When it comes to criminal cases yes. If you are forced to testify at grand jury hearing you can choose which questions to answer.
The amendment makes no such distinction.

But stating it like this, yes you can choose which questions to answer. You can also be charged with contempt for not answering.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2013, 07:51 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,785,325 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Actually no.. You can invoke your right to a lawyer at any time, but the 5th, once sworn in, can not be invoked selectively.
I have yet to find any law - and certainly any Constitutional provision - that says a person can be compelled to make statements incriminating themselves, "under certain conditions".

She can answer fifteen questions from Issa if she wants, and then if she feels the sixteenth question might incriminate her, she can plead the 5th on that question. Then answer three more, then plead the 5th on the next six, etc. etc.

Where in the Constitution does it say that if you answer one question, you must answer them all? It says pretty much the opposite if you ask me.

Or does it say that right after the section that says government can make 'reasonable restrictions" to your right to keep and bear arms?

However, if Congress grants her immunity from prosecution, then she cannot possibly make self-incriminating statements... so THEN she can be compelled to answer, on pain of getting tossed in the hoosegow for contempt of Congress if she doesn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2013, 07:54 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,210,872 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
I have yet to find any law - and certainly any Constitutional provision - that says a person can be compelled to make statements incriminating themselves, "under certain conditions".

She can answer fifteen questions from Issa if she wants, and then if she feels the sixteenth question might incriminate her, she can plead the 5th on that question. Then answer three more, then plead the 5th on the next six, etc. etc.

Where in the Constitution does it say that if you answer one question, you must answer them all? It says pretty much the opposite if you ask me.

Or does it say that right after the section that says government can make 'reasonable restrictions" to your right to keep and bear arms?

However, if Congress grants her immunity from prosecution, then she cannot possibly make self-incriminating statements... so THEN she can be compelled to answer, on pain of getting tossed in the hoosegow for contempt of Congress if she doesn't.
It's been explained here numerous times. If you disagree with the explanation state why rather than make the same already explained claims.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2013, 07:55 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,785,325 times
Reputation: 4174
The applicable part of the 5th amendment reads:

" nor shall any person ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

I don't see any language saying "...unless he has already answered one or more questions on the subject at hand..."

Do you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2013, 07:56 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,785,325 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
It's been explained here numerous times. If you disagree with the explanation state why rather than make the same already explained claims.
I've seen arguments referring to "precedents".

Can court precedents now overrule the U.S. Constitution?

When did that start?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2013, 07:57 PM
 
Location: Texas State Fair
8,560 posts, read 11,216,280 times
Reputation: 4258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
The applicable part of the 5th amendment reads:

" nor shall any person ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

I don't see any language saying "...unless he has already answered one or more questions on the subject at hand..."

Do you?
Seems it's been established the work around is to just say, 'I don't know'. Being Lerner's husband is a lawyer with connections, we may soon get a legal directive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2013, 08:02 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,785,325 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willsson View Post
Seems it's been established the work around is to just say, 'I don't know'. Being Lerner's husband is a lawyer with connections, we may soon get a legal directive.
Of course. I expect that to be the bulk of Lerner's testimony, if/when she starts testifying.

As I said, if Congress grants her immunity, then she can no longer incriminate herself, and so they can force her to testify.

What they can't force her to do, is tell the truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2013, 08:02 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,210,872 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
I've seen arguments referring to "precedents".

Can court precedents now overrule the U.S. Constitution?

When did that start?
You don't want to see.

MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2013, 08:02 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,118,301 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
When it comes to criminal cases yes. If you are forced to testify at grand jury hearing you can choose which questions to answer.
The 5th amendment says that no citizen can be compelled to testify if telling the truth would incriminate oneself. There is nothing to say thats only in relationship to criminal cases.. Where are you getting this crap from?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:03 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top