Amendment V

Debates in Congress

• quoted bySuggested
  House, August 17, 1789, ¶ 31

  …was taken up, viz: ** No person shall be subject, in case of impeachment, to more than one trial or one punishment for the same offence, nor shall be compelled 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 paragraph gives the words of the committee's proposal, and its words from "to be a witness against himself" to "without just compensation" appear in the Fifth Amendment.

• quoted bySuggested
  House, August 18, 1789, ¶ 16

  …or public danger,) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment, or indictment, by a grand jury; but if a crime be committed in a place in the possession of an enemy, or in which an insurrection may prevail, the…

  The paragraph gives the words of a proposal under debate; the words quoted appear unchanged in this clause of the Fifth Amendment.

• quoted bySuggested
  House, June 8, 1789, ¶ 34

  No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one ponisluilfnt or one trial for the same offence; nor jlnNl be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or propert|fvWithout due process of law; nor be obliged J#rel inauish his property, where it may necessary for public use, without a just compensation.

  The paragraph gives the words of Mr. Madison's proposals, and its words "to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or" appear in the Fifth Amendment.

• quoted bySuggested
  House, June 15, 1864, ¶ 113

  He has arrested without" warrant" and condemned without "due process of law" hundreds of our citizens, and confined them in prisons and forts, who have been ascertained to be guiltless of any crime, and you approve it.

  The paragraph puts the words "due process of law" in quotation marks, saying citizens were condemned without it; the quoted phrase is short.

• quoted bySuggested
  House, June 15, 1864, ¶ 191

  We have hitherto considered it a fundamental principle of civil polity, as it is a provision of our Constitution, that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation.

  The paragraph gives as "a provision of our Constitution" that "private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation", the words of the Fifth Amendment's last clause in a different form.

• quoted bySuggested
  House, January 11, 1865, ¶ 5

  Sir, it is written down in the Constitution, tenth amendment, that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law."

  The paragraph quotes what "is written down in the Constitution", "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law", words of the Fifth Amendment; it names them as the "tenth amendment", so the number does not match.

• cited bySuggested
  House, January 11, 1865 (2), ¶ 15

  This claim inures under the special provision of the Constitution, and then only when private property is taken for public use.

  The paragraph names the claim to compensation "under the special provision of the Constitution" when "private property is taken for public use", which is the last clause of the Fifth Amendment.

• quoted bySuggested
  House, January 7, 1865, ¶ 63

  The Constitution says that private prop-\ crty shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

  The paragraph says "the Constitution says that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation", the words of the Fifth Amendment's last clause.

• cited bySuggested
  House, January 7, 1865, ¶ 69

  …way you may by an amendment to the Constitution declare the right of trial by jury abolished; that the right of freedom from unreasonable searches shall no longer remain; and thatthatarticle which declares that no man shall be deprived of his life, liberty, and property without due process of law, may also be taken away.

  The paragraph names "that article which declares that no man shall be deprived of his life, liberty, and property without due process of law" (run together in the scan), which is the Fifth Amendment.

• quoted bySuggested
  Senate, April 8, 1864, ¶ 6

  And thhdly, lie would observe those time honored, most efficacious, chain breaking words in the Amendments:" No person shallhe deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Scorning all false interpretations and glosses which may have been fastened upon the Constitution as a support of slavery, and with these three things before him, he would naturally…

  The paragraph quotes "words in the Amendments": "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", the words of the Fifth Amendment.

• quoted bySuggested
  Senate, April 8, 1864, ¶ 21

  …these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And they will be found, secondly, in that other guarantee and prohibition of the Constitution, in harmony with the Declaration oflndependcnce;" no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Such are some of the essential elements of a" republican form of government,-" which cannot *be disowned by us without disowning the very muniments of our liberties; and it…

  The paragraph quotes "that other guarantee and prohibition of the Constitution": "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law", words of the Fifth Amendment.

• quoted bySuggested
  Senate, April 8, 1864, ¶ 22

  But, independentof the clause of guarantee, there is the clause just quoted, which in itself is a source of power: "noperson shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." This was a part of the amendments to the Constitution proposed by the First Congress, under the popular demand for a Bill of Rights.

  The paragraph quotes "the clause just quoted", which it says was "a part of the amendments to the Constitution proposed by the First Congress"; the words are those of the Fifth Amendment.

• cited bySuggested
  Senate, April 8, 1864, ¶ 24

  Such is the protection which is thrown by the Constitution over every "person," without distinction of race or color, class or condition.

  The paragraph speaks of the protection "thrown by the Constitution over every 'person'" and tells how "due process of law" was put in the amendment in place of "the law of the land"; the clause is the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

• cited bySuggested
  Senate, April 8, 1864, ¶ 27

  …provide for the common defense and general welfare; secondly, the power to raise armies and maintain navies; thirdly the powertoguaranty tocvery State a republican foi n of government; and fourthly, the power to secure liberty to every person restrained without due process of law.

  Among the provisions of the Constitution it calls sources of power, the paragraph names the one concerning every person "restrained without due process of law", the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

• quoted bySuggested
  Senate, April 8, 1864, ¶ 45

  Again, we are brought by learned Senators to the Constitution, which requires that there shall be "just compensation" where" private property" is taken for public use.

  The paragraph says the Constitution "requires that there shall be 'just compensation' where 'private property' is taken for public use", putting words of the Fifth Amendment's last clause in quotation marks in a different order.

• cited bySuggested
  Senate, April 8, 1864, ¶ 135

  Does not the Senator know that an amendment to the Constitution has been adopted since Patrick Henry made that speech, which says that private propei ty shall not be taken for public uses except on just compensation?

  The paragraph names "an amendment to the Constitution" adopted after Patrick Henry's speech "which says that private property shall not be taken for public uses except on just compensation", the last clause of the Fifth Amendment.

• cited bySuggested
  Senate, March 28, 1864, ¶ 123

  …the Senator from Minnesota and myself io this whole matter is this: that he would rob the loyal master of what by the local law is properly with nit compensation, in violation of an express provision of the Constitution, while I would u -t.

  The paragraph says that taking from the loyal master what the local law makes property without compensation would be "in violation of an express provision of the Constitution"; only the just-compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment fits (the OCR reads "properly with nit compensation").

• cited bySuggested
  Senate, May 23, 1866, ¶ 21

  States are not affected by them, and ithas been repeatedly held that the restriction contained in the Constitution against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation is not a restriction upon State legislation, but applies only to the legislation of Congress.

  The paragraph names "the restriction contained in the Constitution against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation," the last clause of the Fifth Amendment.

• quoted bySuggested
  Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1671

  TWs principle is enunciated in our National Constitution in the sentence that no person shall be deprived of liberty or prop erty with t d f 1 h 11 • t t b ou due process 0 law, nor . s a pnva e proper Y e taken for public use without just compensation.

  The speaker quotes a "sentence" of "our National Constitution", that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law nor private property "taken for public use without just compensation", the words of the Fifth Amendment (OCR damage in the middle).

• quoted bySuggested
  Senate, March 19, 1962, ¶ 344

  The Constitution declares that 'no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment of a grand jury.' This bill holds every person not a soldier answerable for all crimes and all charges without any presentment.

  The paragraph quotes words of Section 1 of the Fifth Amendment.

• cited bySuggested
  Senate, March 23, 1962 (2), ¶ 204

  Fifth, these measures undertake to legislate the truth of facts, and thus forbid the exercise of an indestructible judicial function, in violation of the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the Constitution.

  The paragraph names the due process clause of the fifth amendment.

• cited bySuggested
  Senate, March 27, 1962 (3), ¶ 145

  When the Fair Labor Standards Act was introduced it was vehemently contended that this was a manifest misuse of the commerce clause as well as a violation of the fifth amendment which prohibits the Federal Government from taking property without due process or law.

  The paragraph names the fifth amendment by number and its due process guarantee.

The Supreme Court

Cases whose essays in the Constitution Annotated cite them under this clause, oldest first. Each link names the pages it comes from.

• interpreted bySuggestedOverruled
  Twining v. New Jersey (1908)211 U.S. 78, decided November 9, 1908

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 3 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.4.3, Amdt5.5.1, Amdt5.6, Amdt5.6.1, pp. 1723, 1743, 1745.

• interpreted bySuggestedOverruled
  Palko v. Connecticut (1937)302 U.S. 319, decided December 6, 1937

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 4 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.2.1, Amdt5.2.2, Amdt5.3.3, Amdt5.3.6.2, Amdt5.6, Amdt5.6.1, pp. 1694, 1699, 1707, 1745.

• interpreted bySuggested
  United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950)338 U.S. 537, decided January 16, 1950

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 2 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.6.2.2, pp. 1747, 1748.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950)339 U.S. 763, decided June 5, 1950

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 4 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.5.1, Amdt5.6.2.3, Amdt5.6.3, pp. 1743, 1751, 1753, 1754.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei (1953)345 U.S. 206, decided March 16, 1953

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 3 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.6.2.2, Amdt5.6.2.3, Amdt5.6.3, pp. 1748, 1750, 1753.

• interpreted bySuggestedOverruled
  Stein v. New York (1953)346 U.S. 156, decided June 15, 1953

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 4 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.4.2, Amdt5.4.7.2, pp. 1716, 1731, 1732, 1733.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Malloy v. Hogan (1964)378 U.S. 1, decided June 15, 1964

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 4 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.4.3, Amdt5.4.5, pp. 1718, 1720, 1723, 1726.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Miranda v. Arizona (1966)384 U.S. 436, decided June 13, 1966

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 10 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.4.2, Amdt5.4.3, Amdt5.4.7.2, Amdt5.4.7.3, Amdt5.4.7.4, Amdt5.4.7.5, Amdt5.4.7.6, pp. 1716, 1717, 1719, 1731, 1734, 1736, 1738, 1739, 1740, 1741.

• interpreted bySuggested
  United States v. Wilson (1975)420 U.S. 332, decided February 25, 1975

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 5 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.3.1, Amdt5.3.2, Amdt5.3.5, Amdt5.3.6, Amdt5.3.6.1, Amdt5.3.6.2, Amdt5.3.6.4, Amdt5.3.7, Amdt5.3.7.1, pp. 1698, 1706, 1707, 1709, 1710.

• interpreted bySuggestedOverruled
  United States v. Jenkins (1975)420 U.S. 358, decided February 25, 1975

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 2 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.3.6.4, Amdt5.3.7, Amdt5.3.7.1, pp. 1709, 1710.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Mathews v. Eldridge (1976)424 U.S. 319, decided February 24, 1976

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 2 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.6.1, Amdt5.6.2, Amdt5.6.2.1, Amdt5.6.2.2, Amdt5.6.2.3, pp. 1746, 1750.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Fiallo v. Bell (1977)430 U.S. 787, decided April 26, 1977

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 2 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.6.2.2, pp. 1747, 1749.

• interpreted bySuggested
  United States v. Scott (1978)437 U.S. 82, decided June 14, 1978

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 5 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.3.4, Amdt5.3.5, Amdt5.3.6, Amdt5.3.6.1, Amdt5.3.6.3, Amdt5.3.6.4, Amdt5.3.7, Amdt5.3.7.1, pp. 1704, 1706, 1708, 1709, 1710.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York (1978)438 U.S. 104, decided June 26, 1978

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 6 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.9.5, Amdt5.9.6, Amdt5.9.7, pp. 1786, 1787, 1788, 1789, 1790, 1791.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Landon v. Plasencia (1982)459 U.S. 21, decided November 15, 1982

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 3 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.6.2.2, Amdt5.6.2.3, pp. 1747, 1748, 1751.

• interpreted bySuggestedOverruled
  Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)505 U.S. 833, decided June 29, 1992

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 2 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.7.6, pp. 1763, 1764.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Zadvydas v. Davis (2001)533 U.S. 678, decided June 28, 2001

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 4 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.6.2.2, Amdt5.6.2.3, pp. 1747, 1750, 1751, 1752.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Trump v. Hawaii (2018)585 U.S. 667, decided June 26, 2018

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 3 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.6.2.2, Amdt5.6.2.3, pp. 1748, 1749, 1750.