House Commitee votes to nulify constitutional right

[Berserker]

I've been sitting quiet with my rantings for a while, but this pissed me off too much that I just had to vent!! The House Committee voted (purely partisan vote of course) that Lerner (the IRS employee that took the 5th) waved her right!

Regardless of how you feel about the IRS and that debacle, since when does a *bleeping* congressional committee have the authority to strip constitutional privileges from a U.S. citizen??? Who made them judges?!?

What a joke!

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/i ... html?hp=f1

[ahrimen]

It is because she made an opening statement. She can now be questioned on any thing having to do with that statement , hence waiving he right by blabbing on and on about the whole thing.

[ahrimen]

That is why a lot of defence lawyers do not have their defendant take the stand . If you do any thing that the defence lawyer ask the defendant can be attacked in cross examination. Including any statement. If you going to plead the fifth you need to keep your mouth shut.

[Berserker]

I'm not debating whether she has breached her 5th amendment right. And I am not defending her.

I take fault with the house committee deciding that she lost her right on their own. They do not have the right to take away a citizens constitutional rights by a simple vote!

If she did lose her 5th amendment right, that should come from a judge's decision. That's why we have judges. The congress can only pass laws. They don't get to interpret and apply them whenever and however they see fit. What if the democrats in a random Senate committee suddenly decide to vote that Joe Shmoe no longer has the right to carry a weapon and demand he surrender it, would you not take issue with that? Wouldn't that be a breach of the 2nd amendment?

Remember that comities always have a majority of members from the ruling party in that chamber (so today in the house it's a republican majority, in the senate a democratic majority). That means that committees can always pass anything by voting purely partisan. Then stuff goes to the floor, if passed, then it goes to the other chamber, then to the president. We have all these steps in place to ensure that it's very hard to pass laws without scrutiny.

That lady lost her constitutional right because of a simple partisan vote in a committee. The fact that people in Congress think they can do that should scare you.

[ahrimen]

She is before a "congressional hearing" so effectively congress is the judge so they have to vote. In a court a judge would make a ruling on if she broke protocol and if that judge was a democrat I'm pretty sure his one man vote would be on party lines. (Republican like wise) it's actually more fair if you think about it that a group votes over just1 guy deciding.

[ahrimen]

It actually scares me more that I can be targeted by the irs for my political point of view then that this dingbats lawyer didn't inform her of how the 5th works. And it bothers me more that she blatantly broke protocol and not 1 democrat will enforce it. That that would let he pick and choose what and who's questions to answer.

[Fritz]

You can invoke the 5th amendment at any point. You can even stop testimony and invoke your rights. There is no 'you said something so you waived your rights' clause. That said, she can, and in my opinion should, be forced before congress and asked questions. She can respond to each question by invoking the 5th, but Congress is within their rights to do that. Congress does not have the right to strip a citizen of their 5th amendment rights.

[ahrimen]

You can invoke it but you still have to answer questions on any thing you said in a statement or under examination by your own attorney. Otherwise defendants (or witnesses) would take the stand make a statement get examined by their own lawyer , then plead the fifth and not get crossexamined. You could never question any of the credibility of any bullshit that came out of anyone's mouth. Crossexamination would be impossible. Travon's girlfriend who just got hammered in cross was ordered by the judge to answer questions that clearly hurt the prosecutions case. Why not plead the fifth and get off the stand? She could not and had to answer and if zimmerman takes the stand he will be subjected to cross as well and anything he says must also stand up under cross, so likely he will not take the stand.

[Fritz]

That is absolutely true. Travon's girlfriend isn't the best example, but Zimmerman definitely is. In that case, though, any questions would have to be limited to whatever statements she provided under oath to Congress. I maybe incorrect here, but I remember her statement to Congress being quite brief. In any case, I imagine the far more likely outcome is some kind of immunity deal. Congress gets her testimony and possibly some bigger fish to fry. Congress would get their asses handed to them if she took it to court. I agree, I'm far more concerned about the IRS using it's power in an incredibly inappropriate manner than one person's 5th amendment rights, but I see no need to do so. This is the same thing that got us to the whole NSA wiretapping: over the last decade we have repeatedly sacrificed rights for expediency.