Quote Originally Posted by chuck View Post
Duncan,
On a different topic, sometime I would like your opinion on the effect of punctuation in the fifth amendment (http://www.ccel.us/Fifth.html)
First a little pedagogy.

  • Use a semicolon [ ; ] to separate closely related independent clauses: It is rare, but certainly possible, that you will want a semicolon to separate two independent clauses even when those two independent clauses are connected by a coordinating conjunction. This is especially true when the independent clauses are complex or lengthy and when there are commas within those independent clauses.
  • Rules for Comma Usage Use a comma to separate the elements in a series (three or more things), including the last two.

On to the article. The writer is attempting to combine a list of items within a single clause of the sentence. In the process he refers to two semicolons in the Amendment. There are three but the first does not seem to bother him.
  • Clause 1 of the Amendment deals with the necessity of an indictment and exceptions thereto.
  • Clause 2 deals with the issue of double jeopardy.
  • Clause 3 deals with a list of things:
    • First not compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal trial.
    • Second not to be deprived of life without due process.
    • Third not be deprived of liberty without due process.
    • Fourth not be deprived of property without due process.
  • Clause 4 Private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation.


Now if these clauses were contingent on each other or part of another clause they would make little to no sense standing alone.

Further his argument falls apart in and of itself. He claims a requirement to testify against self interest. "(T)he amendment ... assumes that people will be compelled to testify against themselves." Further; "(a)s long as the witness is apprised of any charges against him, as long as he or she is provided legal counsel, as long as all facets of due process are afforded him". How are the officers of the court to know these things when it is the persons own testimony that provides the grounds for legal action?
I was going to go into Due Process" but that would take some time. What I found was making MY head spin. In that process I did run across a related matter. If Mr. Gwinn is correct in his analysis then there is an inherent discrepancy between the Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments. Gwinn says all of the material between "limb" and "law" are inextricably linked, yet the Fourteenth shows that not to be the case.

That is what I have on the issue now. How say you?