Fifth Amendment Importance

845 Words2 Pages

Upon today’s society, an individual can lose their job at any given time for the way they speak in public or online when access to the Internet. Nonetheless, "The Bill of Rights" has a major impact throughout the way people live in society today. Every amendment in "The Bill of Rights" is important and has an effect on every citizen, however, I consider the First Amendment to be the most important. The First Amendment states,” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Constitution). Therefore, the First Amendment …show more content…

The Fifth Amendment is the Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. From the National Center for Constitutional Studies, Amendment 5 states,” 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.” For instance, the rights of due process surrounded the case of Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Company. According to an article entitled,” Punitive Damages Over 10:1 Violates Due Process” reports that,” The sole issue raised by both parties concerned the punitive damage award, specifically, whether the trial court’s remittitur of that award from $19 million to $350,000 based on a ratio of punitive to compensatory damages of 10:1 comports with due process. The trial court ruled that a policy provision limiting coverage was not conspicuous, plain, and clear and was therefore unenforceable, entitling Nickerson to $31,500 in additional benefits under the policy. A jury then found that Stonebridge had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and awarded Nickerson $35,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress. The jury found Stonebridge acted with fraud and fixed the punitive damage award at $19 million. The trial court conditionally granted Stonebridge’s new trial motion unless Nickerson consented to a reduction of the punitive damages to $350,000. Both parties appeal” (Zalma). Justice Crosky conducted his own new trial

Open Document