Tasine Loc: Southwest US

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/congressman-time-for-special-prosecutors/

The mention of Lois Lerner, head of the tax-exempt organizations division of the IRS, took the Fifth Amendment, and that triggered a reader to comment: Anyone that is being paid by the government should not be allowed to take the fifth. If they do, they should be put in prison.

I agree. What do you think?

The Dutchman

Concur 100% and the obozo should be there right along side for all the lies he has told!

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~
These imbeciles think they can get away with anything and everything. How I hope they are wrong as wrong can be. They are relying on Holder and Obama - and I think I'd rather rely on a pen of monkeys first.

Sir Paul

Remember the Watergate Scandal. All the Presidents men pleaded the fifth and they worked for the government. So why not now?

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because now some of us are more politically active than we were way back then and have a sense of what is right and what is wrong with public employees, OUR employees, clamming up and refusing to tell us the truth. They are small and when we condone it, WE are small. That's why.

Ol Bid'

Why not citizens arrest of Lois Lerner?

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If we could make it stick, I'd say, "GO FOR IT!"

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

i was trying to find an article more closely related to what i want to say but no luck so will go ahead here. i want to do a little supposing, most of this i have picked up from other comments so here goes now suppose you were an illegally elected president and suppose you discovered you had a prisoner that al quaida wanted back(the blind sheikh) and now suppose you had a "gay" ambassador that you didn't much like and you had a gun running operation in Benghazi so you send this person to benghazito check up on the op so al quaida could kidnap him with the understanding that the military would stand down but those two nasty seals refused to standdown so al quaida thought obozo had gone back on his word so they raped and castrated him and let him bleed to death would all this explain why he just went to bed when he was told about the raid

Homestead

No, I don't agree.

Our inalienable rights come from god, not the Constitution. It is the purpose of the Constitution and the government it creates, to protect those rights.

If those inalienable rights can be taken from one, they can be taken from everyone.
No one is obligated to testify against themselves.

What should happen, is that the individual be put on leave and an investigation take place. If evidence of criminality is found then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

If incompetence is found, then that individual should be barred from returning. They could try and apply for dog catcher.

If they're behaviour is so bad that the public can't trust them, even as dog catcher, then they must be barred from all government employment.

But, everything must be based on due process and the individuals behaviour as the evidence can substantiate.

billz

I think your are a complete and total imbeciles, it's not your constitution. And you don't get to pick and choose what part we follow. The Bill of Rights is for all! And you have to be a moron to even suggest something like that!

zonkedout1 Loc: Wyoming

I disagree completely. I think that the Bill of Rights is not to be excepted, ever. Meaning that no citizen that is in these united states should lose any of those rights, whether convicted of a crime or crazy(....) unless they are currently in prison. Maybe, giving guns to inmates would be bad, but only maybe.
But, if she thinks her behavior is not appropriate, she should be fired. Because, it's obvious that she thinks criminal charges should be filed. A definitive criminal investigation should be opened immediately. I mean, if the head of a division of the IRS tells you that a crime has been committed, you should open an investigation, cuz if you can't trust them, who can you trust?

Homestead

You need to learn your history.
If it is in fact the government that gives you your rights, then the government can modify or take them away.
If it is the Constitution that gives you your rights them it can be amended and again you lose your rights.

When accused of not putting in Constitutional rights in the Constitution, James Madison replied that the very structure of the Constitution, with it's internal and external structures was a bill of rights. That the government had no power to infringe on individual rights, so non need be stated.

Alexander Hamilton, stated that the government had no power to interfere with the free press and then said that writing that the press had a right to be free, might allow some clever fellow, in the future, to say that the very need of stated Constitutional right demonstrates that the government did have the power or else the stated right wouldn't need to have been written.

All of our rights come from the Natural Laws of Man.
They are god given.
The only purpose of government is to secure those natural rights.

Get out your Federalist Papers and star reading.

Hillsdale College has a number of free Constitutional internet courses.
I suggest that you get a hold of them and get started.

zonkedout1 Loc: Wyoming

You have a lovely teaching method, falling just short of calling me an idiot. And, though I respect that Hillsdale college is the last man standing in the fight for privatized higher education. And, philisophically speaking, Hamilton is right that these are natural laws and government has the ability to secure them. I will look at history, like you suggested, and deduce that the role of government is to systematically remove those rights until finally wrested from them once more.

Homestead

That's not the role of government.
That is the danger of government and why our rights must be jealously guarded.

zonkedout1 Loc: Wyoming

That, I can agree with (preposition). :-)