Obama Now Considering Trashing The Fifth Amendment

White House leaves door open to sending American Amanda Knox back to Italy

President Obama’s spokesman wouldn’t say if the administration intends to extradite Amanda Knox to Italy, where the country’s highest court has ordered she face retrial for murder charges.

White House leaves door open to sending American Amanda Knox back to Italy | WashingtonExaminer.com

The Fifth Amendment is completely unambiguous

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

Are there any parts of the Bill of Rights which Obama doesn’t intend to trash?

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Obama Now Considering Trashing The Fifth Amendment

  1. Jim says:

    Even a Moron should realize that Amanda Knox is never going back to Italy for another trial.
    Anyone who was alive when the police officers were acquitted in State Court of beating Rodney King should remember that result and the ensuing riots and the retrial and the subsequent conviction on Federal charges. Also, all Morons should know that when a conviction is set aside on appeal, the prosecution can have a new trial on the case. This happens in the USA all the time. Nothing unusual at all.
    The Morons permeate the internet !

    • Apparently they permeate the White House – who are obligated to uphold the Constitution unambiguously. So feel free to take a flying leap.

      What part of “President Obama’s spokesman wouldn’t say” isn’t clear to you?

  2. I. Lou Minotti says:

    There are none. But realize it isn’t only our Manchurian “Fezident,” it’s also the limp-wrists in the Senate and House of Representatives. They’ve all been corrupted (with the exception of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Jim Inhofe).

  3. James in Perth says:

    I have to disagree with you here, Steven. The most likely reason the spokesman wouldn’t say is because the government has yet to consider the issue. And while the Italian appellate system may indeed seem byzantine to us, it is a nation (more or less) founded on the rule of law. I think you are more credible when you criticize the Obama administration for its real failings which are substantial and numerous. This isn’t one of them.

  4. In Italy, people are considered guilty and must prove their innocents. That alone would make me question ever extraditing someone over there.

  5. John B., M.D. says:

    Italian law is different. That said, I’ll be surprised if she is extradited.

    • PhilJourdan says:

      I find it unfathomable that the US would violate its own constitution in order to do so. But then it us not unprecedented with this president.

  6. James in Perth says:

    It would be helpful to look at the Constitution for some guidance on this question. Article VI of the Constitution provides that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
    Thus, if the United States has an extradition with Italy, then the government will have to take into account its effect in making its decision about Knox. This does not mean that the treaties are of equal status with the Constitution; nor does it mean that the treaty should be ignored on double jeopardy grounds. All it means is that the President should give due consideration to both as a matter of comity.
    And while I understand the angst about the presumption of innocence, many judicial systems operate within the rule of law on the same basis. Simply because a foreign country has rules different from our own doesn’t mean that justice is not done. That said, there is a significant element of unfairness where the matter has dragged on for so many years with so many courts ruling differently on several narrow points of law.
    All the experts seem to be of the mind that Knox will not have to return to Italy. If so, good for her. But we should all agree that the rule of law – and this includes international law and treaties – should prevail without prejudice to the nationality of the defendant.

    • Olaf Koenders says:

      ..there is a significant element of unfairness where the matter has dragged on for so many years with so many courts ruling differently on several narrow points of law.

      Exactly. If an Italian court has already overturned the guilty verdict, their understanding of the USSA’s 5th amendment AND in allowing her to return to the USSA, knowingly forfeited further chances of a retrial in Italy.

      They had their chance and Obama should say so.

  7. Brian G Valentine says:

    I personally think she is guilty. Unless she comes up with a good explanation why “I wasn’t there I didn’t hear it I couldn’t stand the screaming” is all the same story.

    If she commits a crime in a democratic country, she is liable to answer for that crime. Same as if she did it here in the US. She isn’t going to pull an O J Simpson in Italy evidently, and I have no sympathy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s