Mediaboss Marketing

Twenty-fifth Amendment, amendment (1967) to the Constitution of the United States that set forth succession rules relating to vacancies and disabilities of the office of the president and of the vice president. It was proposed by the U.S. Congress on July 6, 1965, and it was ratified on Feb. 10, 1967.

While the first section of the Twenty-fifth Amendment codified the traditionally observed process of succession in the event of the death of the presidentthat the vice president would succeed to the officeit also introduced a change regarding the ascent of the vice president to president should the latter resign from office. In the event of resignation, the vice president would assume the title and position of presidentnot acting presidenteffectively prohibiting the departing president from returning to office.

The second section of the amendment addresses vacancies in the office of the vice president. Traditionally, when the office of vice president was vacant, usually through the vice presidents succession to the presidency following the death of the president, the office of vice president stood vacant until the next election. Through the Twenty-fifth Amendment, the president would nominate a vice president, who would be subject to confirmation by the U.S. Congress. Only a few years after the amendments ratification, this section was put into effect. In 1973 Spiro Agnew resigned as Pres. Richard M. Nixons vice president, and Nixon subsequently selected Gerald R. Ford, who was then serving as minority leader in the House of Representatives, to serve as vice president. Despite the fact that Nixon and Ford were Republicans and the Democrats retained majorities in both the House and the Senate, Ford was easily confirmed, which indicated that the process would focus less on policy positions than a general fitness for office. Ford assumed the duties of vice president on Dec. 6, 1973, and upon Nixons resignation from office to avoid impeachment, Ford became the first president to accede to office according to the Twenty-fifth Amendment on Aug. 9, 1974. Had the Twenty-fifth Amendment not been in effect, Nixon would not have been able to replace Agnew, and it remains speculative whether Nixon would have resigned prior to impeachment and a trial and thus enabled the Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives to become president under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.

The third section of the amendment set forth the formal process for determining the capacity of the president to discharge the powers and duties of office. It assumes that the president has the presence of mind and physical ability to produce a written statement formally notifying the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of such circumstances, which would result in the vice presidents temporarily serving as acting president. In the event that a president may be unable to declare his inability to discharge the powers and duties of office, the fourth section of the amendment requires such determinations to be made jointly by the vice president and the cabinet, with the vice president immediately assuming the position of acting president.

Prior to the passage of the amendment, nine presidentsWilliam Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Dwight D. Eisenhowerexperienced health crises that left them temporarily incapacitated, with death resulting in six cases (Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Harding). After the passage of the amendment, Pres. Ronald Reagan was incapacitated for some 24 hours while undergoing surgery for a gunshot wound resulting from a failed assassination attempt, though no official designation of presidential responsibility was ever made. Indeed, this portion of the Twenty-fifth Amendment has never been invoked.

Test Your Knowledge

Prehistory and Origins: Fact or Fiction?

The full text of the amendment is:

Section 1In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Read more:
Twenty-fifth Amendment | United States Constitution ...

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 final phrases of the Fifth Amendment established the limitations on the principle of eminent domain. In the 20th century, the Fifth Amendment became most noted for its prohibition of forced self-incriminating testimony, and "I plead the Fifth" became a catchphrase for the amendment.

This application of the amendment is, however, uncontroversial and has not figured prominently in Supreme Court decisions. Much less clear is the meaning of the due process provision. A century ago, it was often argued that the Fifth Amendment prohibition against depriving an individual of liberty meant that the right to enter into contracts, which represents a liberty, is infringed when government regulations fix such things as minimum wages. This interpretation of due process has generally fallen out of favor.

Ratified in 1791

See Table of Amendments.

V... v artiguist source, uruguay | educational institution flags (australia) | v (tv) | valparaso region (chile) | venda (south african homeland) | va'ad qiryat haim municipality of haifa (israel) | va'ad qiryat shmu'el municipality of haifa ...http://fotw.vexillum.com/flags/keywordv.html

What Does the Sixth Amendment Mean? To Whom Does it Apply?, Gideon v. Wainwright, Landmark Supreme Court CasesHe thought that amendment was one of the most important amendments. Others disagreed with him, arguing that because many state constitutions had their own Bills of Rights, it would not be necessary to protect citizens from abuse at the hands of ...http://www.landmarkcases.org/gideon/sixth.html

ARTICLE VState, 99 Nev. 149, at 150, 659 P.2d 878 (1983), State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 100 Nev. 90, at 104, 677 P.2d 1044 (1984), dissenting opinion, Kelch v. Director, Dept of Prisons, 10 F.3d 684, at 686 (9th Cir. 1993), Wicker v. State, 111 Nev. http://www.nevada-history.org/article_5.html

See the original post:
Amendment V - United States American History

Fifth Amendment: Protection against abuse of government authority

What is 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 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

The Fifth Amendment Defined:

The Fifth Amendment stems from English Common Law and traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215.

The Fifth Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.

The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.

Stipulations of the 5th Amendment:

The Fifth Amendment is asserted in any proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, judicial, investigatory, or adjudicatory. The Fifth Amendment protects against all disclosures where the witness reasonably believes the evidence can be used in a criminal prosecution and can lead to the spawning of other evidence that might be used against the individual.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees an American individual the right to trial by Grand Jury for specific crimes, the right not to be tried and subsequently punished more than once for the same crime, the right to be tried with only due process of the law and the right to be awarded fair compensation for any property seized by the government for public use.

The Fifth Amendment also guarantees the individual the right to refrain from self-incrimination by pleading the fifth to any questions or inquiries that may give way to an additional punishment or the notion of a guilty plea.

State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of Rights

New Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article II

Maryland:December 19, 1789; approved all

North Carolina:December 22, 1789; approved all

South Carolina: January 19, 1790; approved all

New Hampshire: January 25, 1790; rejected article II

Delaware: January 28, 1790; rejected article I

New York: February 27, 1790; rejected article II

Pennsylvania: March 10, 1790; rejected article II

Rhode Island: June 7, 1790; rejected article II

Vermont: November 3, 1791; approved all

Virginia: December 15, 1791; approved all

comments

Link:
5th Amendment - constitution | Laws.com

In American constitutional democracy, democratic choices are limited by restraints imposed by the Constitution. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment dictates that neither life nor liberty nor property may be deprived absent due process, which the Supreme Court construes to require adjudication by a neutral judge.

In short, under the Constitution one cannot be deprived of liberty without a court ruling upon the legality of the detention. The power of courts to restrain government officers from depriving citizens of liberty absent judicial process is the only meaningful way courts have to enforce important constitutional protections. But if the president can employ the pardon power to circumvent constitutional protections of liberty, there is very little left of the constitutional checks on presidential power.

I am not suggesting that the pardon power itself provides for a due process exception. To the contrary, on its face the pardon power appears virtually unlimited. But as a principle of constitutional law, anything in the body of the Constitution inconsistent with the directive of an amendment is necessarily pre-empted or modified by that amendment. If a particular exercise of the pardon power leads to a violation of the due process clause, the pardon power must be construed to prevent such a violation.

I admit that this is a novel theory. Theres no Supreme Court decision, at least that I know of, that deals specifically with the extent to which the president may employ his pardon power in this way.

But if the president can immunize his agents in this manner, the courts will effectively lose any meaningful authority to protect constitutional rights against invasion by the executive branch. This is surely not the result contemplated by those who drafted and ratified the Fifth Amendment, and surely not the result dictated by precepts of constitutional democracy. All that would remain to the courts by way of enforcement would be the possibility of civil damage awards, hardly an effective means of stopping or deterring invasions of the right to liberty.

Anyone who has read the Federalist Papers knows how obsessed the framers were with the need to prevent tyranny. They were all too aware of the sad fate of all the republics that had preceded ours rapid degeneration into tyranny. One of the most effective means of preventing tyranny was the vesting of the power of judicial review in a court system insulated from direct political pressures. Subsequent enactment of the Bill of Rights, which included the Fifth Amendment and its due process clause, only strengthened the nations resolve to prevent tyranny.

It has long been recognized that the greatest threat of tyranny derives from the executive branch, where the commander in chief sits, overseeing not just the military but a vast and growing network of law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Indeed, the Articles of Confederation didnt even provide for an executive, for fear of what dangerous power he might exercise.

While the Constitution, in contrast, recognizes the very practical need for an executive, that doesnt mean its framers feared the growth of tyranny any less. The Fifth Amendments guarantee of neutral judicial process before deprivation of liberty cannot function with a weaponized pardon power that enables President Trump, or any president, to circumvent judicial protections of constitutional rights.

Martin H. Redish is a professor of constitutional law at Northwestern and the author of Judicial Independence and the American Constitution: A Democratic Paradox.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

Read the original:
Why Trump Can't Pardon Arpaio - New York Times

Two bankers were indicted in the U.S. on Thursday on allegations that they manipulated a key benchmark interest rate while at French lender Socit Gnrale SA, in the latest U.S. attempt to prosecute alleged participants in a multibillion-dollar scandal that roiled global markets.

The U.S. Justice Department accused Danielle Sindzingre and Muriel Bescond of instructing their subordinates to submit inaccurately low figures that were then used to calculate Libor, or the London interbank offered rate, according to the indictment in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn.

The actions, which are alleged to have happened between May 2010 and October 2011, caused more than $170 million in harm to global financial markets because the false information affected transactions tied to Libor, according to the indictment.

The two bankers were charged with one count of conspiring to transmit false reports concerning market information that tends to affect a commodity and four counts of transmitting false reports.

Ms. Sindzingre, Ms. Bescond and the bank didn't respond to a request for comment. It isn't immediately clear if the women still work for Socit Gnrale.

In July, a federal appeals-court panel overturned the convictions of two former Rabobank traders in the scandal, saying the defendants' Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination had been violated.

Libor is calculated every working day by polling major banks on their estimated borrowing costs. The rate was used to price futures contracts, interest rate swaps and other financial products world-wide. Its integrity has been called into question following a rate-rigging scandal where traders at numerous banks were able to nudge it up or down by submitting false data.

In the wake of the scandal, a top U.K. regulator said in July that it would phase out the rate, which is used to set the price of trillions of dollars of loans and derivatives across the world.

Write to Austen Hufford at austen.hufford@wsj.com

Two bankers were indicted in the U.S. on allegations that they manipulated a key benchmark interest rate while at French lender Socit Gnrale SA, in the latest U.S. attempt to prosecute alleged participants in a multibillion-dollar scandal that roiled global markets.

The U.S. Justice Department accused Danielle Sindzingre and Muriel Bescond of instructing their subordinates to submit inaccurately low figures that were then used to calculate the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, according to Thursday's indictment in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn.

The actions, which are alleged to have happened between May 2010 and October 2011, caused more than $170 million in harm to global financial markets because the false information affected transactions tied to Libor, according to the indictment.

The two bankers were charged with one count of conspiring to transmit false reports concerning market information that tends to affect a commodity and four counts of transmitting false reports.

Ms. Sindzingre, Ms. Bescond and the bank didn't respond to a request for comment. The women remain employed at Socit Gnrale, a Justice Department spokeswoman said Thursday.

In July, a federal appeals-court panel overturned the convictions of two former Rabobank traders in the scandal, saying the defendants' Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination had been violated.

Libor is calculated every working day by polling major banks on their estimated borrowing costs. The rate was used to price futures contracts, interest-rate swaps and other financial products world-wide. Its integrity has been called into question after a rate-rigging scandal where traders at numerous banks were able to nudge it up or down by submitting false data.

In the wake of the scandal, a top U.K. regulator said in July that it would phase out the rate, which is used to set the price of trillions of dollars of loans and derivatives across the world.

Write to Austen Hufford at austen.hufford@wsj.com

View post:
US indicts 2 bankers in Libor-rigging case - MarketWatch