4 ms·
IANAL, but the text of the Fifth Amendment doesn't support your claim. Let's look at it piece by piece: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or oth
by rabidgnat 17y ago
IANAL, but the text of the Fifth Amendment doesn't support your claim. Let's look at it piece by piece:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on 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
Not applicable
nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb
Not applicable
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
Most people express this as "You can't incriminate yourself," but this is a much more specific clause and pertains only to criminal cases.
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
This deprivation of money would be within due process of law
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Not applicable
(end of text)
In terms of self-incrimination, the Fifth is used entirely in situations relating testimony and criminal proceedings. Furthermore, were it unconstitutional to incriminate yourself through inaction, "duty to rescue" laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue), though often unexercised, would also fail to be Constitutional.
- Zak 17y agoI don't think the deprivation of money would be within due process of law. Aside from that point, where does the constitution say the government can mandate participation in an insurance plan, public or private?