Bill of Rights ?

[nooskye]

I am at the point in our history lessons where I need some help. We are covering the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence; and the big girl has decided to learn the Bill of Rights first.

She's got the whole freedom of speech down, as well as her right to bear arms, the one we are having problems getting her to understand is the 5th, it states:

"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 offence 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"


She understands her right not to incriminate herself & the double jeapordy rule ... but she's having problems understanding eminate (sp?) domain ... and truthfully, I do not know how to explain this to her ... especially when the Right clearly states that it can't be done without "just compensation" .... further ... how can i explain to her that the very government that stands by this document can throw it out the window so to speak when THEY want something .... ???? ....

any takers????

[Fish-Bait]

Just tell her in the not too near future we will be a third world country and a socialist community and the bill of rights will be bunk. (Don't get mad at her if she makes a bad grade on this.):-D

They have to compensate you, doesn't mean at retail price like some of the land around here though.....25k for a 1/2 acre.....get out of here....

[hendrixfreak70]

I am at the point in our history lessons where I need some help. We are covering the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence; and the big girl has decided to learn the Bill of Rights first.

She's got the whole freedom of speech down, as well as her right to bear arms, the one we are having problems getting her to understand is the 5th, it states:

"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 offence 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"


She understands her right not to incriminate herself & the double jeapordy rule ... but she's having problems understanding eminate (sp?) domain ... and truthfully, I do not know how to explain this to her ... especially when the Right clearly states that it can't be done without "just compensation" .... further ... how can i explain to her that the very government that stands by this document can throw it out the window so to speak when THEY want something .... ???? ....

any takers????

You do not want me to answer this one. I will start with a like a three hour essay on the ins and outs of our historical ignoring of the Constitution, then wind up saying something to the effect that 9/11 was an inside job. I would love to bite, but I shouldn't:laugh:

[JMC]

Probably the 'just compensation' is throwing her off.

Hmm..Maybe explain it in a way that 'just compensation' for one may not be the same for another and if they don't agree then a judge will determine 'just compensation.'

[Reason]

Excerpts from the Web:

The Fifth Amendment limits the power of eminent domain by requiring "just compensation" be paid if private property is taken for public use.

This did not originally apply directly to the states, but the federal courts.

The property need not actually be used by the public; rather, it must be used or disposed of in such a manner as to benefit the public welfare or public interest.

The owner of the property that is taken by the government must be justly compensated. If the owner claims the property was intended for a future use, it is not taken into account when determining the amount that must be paid. Normally, the fair market value of the property determines "just compensation." If the property is taken before the payment is made, interest accrues.

The federal courts have not restrained state and local governments from seizing privately owned land for private commercial development on behalf of private developers as long as it is for public use.

[58ford]

It basically means you don't really own anything you think you own.

[mi_nombre_es]

The government reserves the right to take your land with compensation they see fit. If you refuse "just compensation", they also reserve the right to force you off your land by condeming the house/land.

[nooskye]

thanks to all for your responses ... it's helped her to read how other people say it ... just makes SO much more sense :smt118

thanks again ...