Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NOW who wrote (48756)	3/27/2006 7:26:26 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

He is confusing a violation of civil liberties with the diminishment of property rights. The Fifth Amendment: "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." The absolutists read the fifth and believe its unconstitutional to even tax property or to put limits on the use of property (they would support a strip joint in a residential neighborhood). That was never the intention of the fifth, and it would also be bad economics. As an aside, the Endangered Species Act is obviously constitutional.