Mediaboss Marketing

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

BRI Resources

What is the Significance of the Free Exercise Clause?

How has Speech Been Both Limited and Expanded, and How Does it Apply to You and Your School?

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

BRI Resources

What are the Origins and Interpretations of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

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.

BRI Resources

Liberty and Security in Modern Times

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

BRI Resources

How Does the Fifth Amendment Protect Property?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

BRI Resources

Gideon v. Wainwright

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

BRI Resources

Due Process of Law

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

BRI Resources

How Do Due Process Protections for the Accused Protect Us All?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

BRI Resources

What is the Scope of the Bill of Rights?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

BRI Resources

State and Local Governments

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madisonwrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties. For example, the Founders saw the ability to speak and worship freely as a natural right protected by the First Amendment. Congress is prohibited from making laws establishing religion or abridging freedom of speech. The Fourth Amendment safeguards citizens right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in their homes through the requirement of a warrant.

The Bill of Rights was strongly influenced by the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason. Other precursors include English documents such as the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights, and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties.

One of the many points of contention between Federalists, who advocated a strong national government, and Anti-Federalists, who wanted power to remain with state and local governments, was the Constitutions lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.

Madison, then a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, altered the Constitutions text where he thought appropriate. However, several representatives, led by Roger Sherman, objected, saying that Congress had no authority to change the wording of the Constitution. Therefore, Madisons changes were presented as a list of amendments that would follow Article VII.

The House approved 17 amendments. Of these, the Senate approved 12, which were sent to the states for approval in August 1789. Ten amendments were approved (or ratified). Virginias legislature was the final state legislature to ratify the amendments, approving them on December 15, 1791.

Go here to see the original:
Bill of Rights (1791)

The January 6 committee revealed on Tuesday that former National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn pleaded the Fifth Amendment when asked whether he believed the violence on January 6, 2021, was justified.

The revelation came amid former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony before the committee during a discussion about a pre-January 6 meeting taking place at the Willard Hotel near the White House. Flynn was present at the meeting.

During that line of questioning, committee vice chair Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming aired a clip of Flynn appearing to struggle with the question.

"General Flynn, do you believe the violence on January 6 was justified?" Cheney said in the clip.

Flynn's lawyer immediately asked to consult with Flynn privately, which lasted for 1 minute and 36 seconds.

"Could you repeat the question please?" the lawyer then asked.

Flynn and his lawyer then asked Cheney to clarify whether she meant the question legally or morally.

"I'm asking both," she tersely replied.

14 more seconds passed before Flynn responded.

"I said, I said the Fifth," he said.

Flynn, the country's former national security advisor and a retired three-star Army general, also declined to say whether he believed in the peaceful transfer of power.

In the Trump administration's final weeks, Flynn publicly advocated for Trump to impose martial law and to use the US military to seize voting machines across the US; the US military has no constitutional role in state or federal elections.

Follow this link:
Video: Mike Flynn pleads the 5th when asked if Jan. 6 violence was justified - Business Insider

Love of Christ is in Fourth of July

Our Declaration of Independence declares, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The right to life is our first freedom!

This first freedom is reiterated in the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution of The United States: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law …"

This amendment to the Constitution clearly prohibits abortion murder.Joey or Susie (not tissue) could not look like daddy if life did not begin at conception (the only connection). Even Supreme Court justices can figure that out. This still needs corrected.

It is not an issue for the state.It is not for man or woman to decide for the murder of innocent babies, but it is for men and women to act lovingly and responsibly and to not conceive if they are not prepared to love, care and provide for the child as a family.That is the responsible, loving, caring, unselfish, Christian choice that a child deserves.

God will forgive a repentant soul and will bless the moral actions of His people.

Lets all celebrate the Fourth of July with responsible, caring, freedom actions.God Bless!

Jim Erwin, Galion

See original here:
Letter to the Editor: Constitution prohibits abortion - Telegraph-Forum

A motion filed on behalf of Brian Dennison of Buxton argues that trying him again following a mistrial would violate his Fifth Amendment rights.

PORTLAND, Maine A Buxton man who allegedly tweeted "I'm going to kill Jews with my AF-15 tomorrow" filed a motion to dismiss the criminal case against him, citing his Fifth Amendment rights following a previous mistrial.

Brian Dennison, 25, was arrested in Buxton in September 2021 after a private security firm and the FBI flagged the tweet and another on the same day that said, "I'm building a pipe bomb."

Dennison was charged with transmitting threatening interstate communication, a felony that carries up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

In May, Chief U.S. District Judge Jon D. Levy declared a mistrial on the first day of Dennison's trial after being alerted that one of the witnesses who had just given testimony an FBI agent who first contacted the defendant at his parents' home tested positive for COVID. Levy said he could have attempted to carry on, but the witness had more testimony yet to give.

Before the COVID diagnosis, Dennison's defense lawyer, Thomas Hallett, tried to establish for the jury that Dennison's Tweet while hateful, he said only reached a small number of potential followers, and no reasonable person would feel threatened.

The prosecution, including Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Wolff, argued Dennison made a clear threat to harm others, with a specific date to carry it out.

In a motion to dismiss filed Wednesday by his attorney, Hallett argued a new trial would violate his Fifth Amendment rights against being prosecuted twice for the same crime.

Hallett writes that there was no "manifest necessity" to declare a mistrial for several reasons, including that the court failed to adequately investigate possible jury contamination, there was no evidence that the witness in question was an essential witness, that any witness unavailability was caused by the government, and that the court did not adequately investigate an alternative to a mistrial.

More NEWS CENTER Maine stories

Read the original post:
Maine man who threatened to kill Jewish people with AR-15 seeks dismissal - NewsCenterMaine.com WCSH-WLBZ

Trevor Noah

Trevor Noah tore into another outrageous supreme court ruling this week: the 6-3 decision in West Virginia v EPA, which limits the Environmental Protection Agencys power to regulate emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants. The supreme court ruled that Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to protect the environment ? So what is their job now? Just to look at the environment and be like oh shit? Noah wondered on Thursday nights Daily Show.

Its always weird to me how the news in America frames some of these stories, he continued, such as calling the ruling a defeat for the Biden administration.

It is a defeat for human life! It has nothing to do with Biden, said Noah.

Experts believe the logic of the ruling will make it difficult for any agency to pass any regulations without Congress passing a specific law first. These agencies arent perfect, dont get me wrong, but could you imagine if Congress had to approve, like, vaccines? he said. Imagine if you had to wait for them. It wouldve never happened. Wed still all be locked in our houses, clapping out of our windows, because Congress couldnt convince Marjorie Taylor Greene that needles werent actually a space alien conspiracy.

The ruling only clarified what has been evident from this supreme court term: From environmental regulations, to abortion, to guns, to school prayer, to voter rights, this is one of the most radical supreme courts in American history, Noah concluded.

And theyre also imposing their power on a country that, for the most part, isnt on board with any of it.

The most recent supreme court term has been a real rollercoaster ride, in that I am nauseous and scared were all going to die, said Stephen Colbert on Thursday evening.

He elaborated: In the last week alone, the justices have weakened the separation of church and state, overturned Roe v Wade, struck down a 109-year-old New York law limiting guns in public and today, they dropped a ruling limiting the EPAs regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

What are you thinking, supreme court? he wondered. Its the Environmental. Protection. Agency. If they cant limit emissions, then the agency cant protect the environment. Theyre going to have to change what the P stands for. Maybe Environmental Punch Dolphins in the Taint Agency.

Chief justice John Roberts argued in the majority that while capping carbon emissions would be a solution to the crisis of the day, a decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself

Hey! Johnny Bobby! This is an emergency, Colbert fumed. You dont stand on the side of the pool watching somebody drown and say uh, well, actually Mr Lifeguard, you cant jump in and save him, because I saw you eat less than half an hour ago. There are rules.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote: The court appoints itself instead of Congress or the expert agency the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.

Really? Have you seen their other decisions? Colbert responded. With these maniacs in charge, our only hope is that the smokestacks put on a condom.

And on Late Night, Seth Meyers debriefed another intense week of public January 6 committee hearings. Though he was not optimistic that the hearings would change any hardcore Republicans minds, Meyers said he was hopeful the hearings will influence prosecutors in the justice department, because one area where these hearings have been shockingly successful have been establishing criminal intent and a consciousness of guilt among Trump and his gang of pro-coup weirdos.

Meyers pointed to former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pushed Trump to use the military to seize voting machines. In his interview with the committee, Flynn consistently invoked the fifth amendment for what you would think would be pretty straightforward questions for any non-fascists.

Flynn refused to answer questions such as: Do you believe the violence on January 6 was justified morally? Do you believe the violence on January 6 was justified legally? And Do you believe in the peaceful transition of power in the United States of America?

Youre pleading the fifth over a hypothetical that has nothing to do with the law? Meyers laughed. The fifth amendment doesnt work like that. Its not Family Feud it doesnt say you have the right to pass after you buzz in.

These are just benign hypotheticals, he continued. This is like if your spouse said how do you feel about monogamy? And your answer was Im invoking my fifth amendment right not to answer questions about your sister. Its not going to end the conversation.

Thats how aware these guys were that they were in legal trouble, he added. They wouldnt even answer questions about whether they believe in the peaceful transfer of power.

More here:
Trevor Noah on supreme court gutting the EPA: So what is their job now? - The Guardian