The 5th amendment was meant to serve the people as a protection against tyranny. It should not be available to the tyrants when they are brought before the people for justice.
Whether its Loretta Lynch, Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton, or any other government crook brought before a court, or committee to testify the 5th amendment should not be an option. They represented the government in their actions and the government should not enjoy the protections against incrimination designed for the people.
How do we determine who the "government crook"s are without there being a fair trial (adhering to the constitution)?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
One needn't determine who the crooks are first. If a government employee (elected, appointed, whatever) is called upon to testify about a government operation then they cannot use the 5th amendment to hide the operation of the government from the public's view. I would even assert that we should have a waiver made available to all who enter public service clarifying they will be giving up the protections against tyranny offered in the Constitution for the period of time they are employed by the tyrant.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interesting. But could you clarify what you meant by "employed by the tyrant". Also, what if a testimony could be a breach of national security?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Our federal government is operating unconstitutionally, far exceeding the limits placed on it by that document. It is behaving as a tyrant in so many ways it is practically innumerable. When the time comes (if such a time ever returns) that our federal government follows the limits and restrictions placed on it by the Constitution I will refrain from calling it a tyrant.
As for national security, I am suspicious whenever I hear that phrase used to cover the acts of the tyrant. There is some reasonable level of secrecy necessary for purposes of national security, but the amount of secrecy currently claimed by our government under that umbrella is too much. How can we be a self governing people if we are not allowed to know what our government is doing? Too many secrets, they must be peeled back. As the tyrant uses its weapons: the IRS, the NSA and CIA and FBI and other parts of its intelligence communities, the creation of so many laws that it is impossible for any person to be in compliance with them all, the need to peer behind the curtain of secrecy for the sake of regaining the power of the people to restrain the government outweighs the vast majority of the claims of need for secrecy. (In my humble opinion.)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That is fair
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit