no

No problem. In fact...I might as well just post a plain modern English translation here:

The 5th amendment for people that only speak modern English (ya know...most people).

Amendment Five: You can't put people on trial for really really big-deal type crimes without doing a grand jury first (unless they're military or this is a war zone). You also can't keep putting someone on trial for the same thing over and over; if they're innocent once it's done, can't try again. You also can't force a person to get on the witness stand in his own trial if they don't want to, and in general nobody has to answer any questions that they think might incriminate themselves in something. You also can't execute/jail/restrict the rights/confiscate the property of anyone without proper due process being followed (which means there's certain well defined things that can be done at reasonable suspicion -> probable cause -> actual arrest -> trial -> conviction -> etc., without that process you can't do bad things to people). And you also can't go around using people's stuff for public usage (i.e. taking private land for a public park, or commandeering a vehicle for a chase) without paying them a proper amount of money for what you took.

Bam.

It's specifically the "due process" stuff that most the people in this video don't understand. Yeah, without due process an officer can't forcibly search your car...but reasonable suspicion (i.e. the noticeable smell of an illegal substance) is part of that due process and changes that and gives them the legal right to temporarily detain you (like a traffic stop) and investigate further (like search the place where the noticeable smell is coming from).

However, some of the people in these comments aren't much better. For example, the guy at the checkpoint (which are typically just random places on the road INSIDE the U.S. normal roadways, not at the actual border crossings) was stopped (which is temporary detention, he's forced to stop and interact with those officers, and that is being temporarily detained) without any reasonable suspicion before the stop. He then has to cooperate and prove his innocence of a crime they never had any reasonable suspicion to stop him for in the first place? That's ludicrous and 100% totally and completely contrary to the Bill of Rights.

And it's not simple and innocent either. Precedent is a REAL thing in law. If there's precedent of being allowed to "bend" (break) the constitution in this way then that gives a very real footing to laws that would make the same "bend" (break). Being allowed to temporarily detain people without reasonable suspicion and then force them to answer questions under penalty of "refusal" being considered its own reasonable suspicion has some pretty far reaching consequences. Allowing it to happen is allowing the GENERAL power to detain people without cause and force them to prove their innocence by literally making it a crime to refuse to try to prove your innocence. Imagine all the horrible ways such a power could be used. THAT is why people refuse to comply with such usurpation of power, even if it us just "easier" to show your papers.

He cannot be forced to act as a witness against himself. Very simple. The prosecution cannot call the defendant to the witness stand if he doesn't want to. Other people can very much be subpoenaed for their testimony and have to get on the stand. The defendant cannot.

It also means that any time a person feels that a line of questioning might lead to something indicating their guilt in something they can refuse to answer by pleading the 5th amendment.

No problem. In fact...I might as well just post a plain modern English translation here:

The 5th amendment for people that only speak modern English (ya know...most people).

Amendment Five: You can't put people on trial for really really big-deal type crimes without doing a grand jury first (unless they're military or this is a war zone). You also can't keep putting someone on trial for the same thing over and over; if they're innocent once it's done, can't try again. You also can't force a person to get on the witness stand in his own trial if they don't want to, and in general nobody has to answer any questions that they think might incriminate themselves in something. You also can't execute/jail/restrict the rights/confiscate the property of anyone without proper due process being followed (which means there's certain well defined things that can be done at reasonable suspicion -> probable cause -> actual arrest -> trial -> conviction -> etc., without that process you can't do bad things to people). And you also can't go around using people's stuff for public usage (i.e. taking private land for a public park, or commandeering a vehicle for a chase) without paying them a proper amount of money for what you took.

Bam.

It's specifically the "due process" stuff that most the people in this video don't understand. Yeah, without due process an officer can't forcibly search your car...but reasonable suspicion (i.e. the noticeable smell of an illegal substance) is part of that due process and changes that and gives them the legal right to temporarily detain you (like a traffic stop) and investigate further (like search the place where the noticeable smell is coming from).

However, some of the people in these comments aren't much better. For example, the guy at the checkpoint (which are typically just random places on the road INSIDE the U.S. normal roadways, not at the actual border crossings) was stopped (which is temporary detention, he's forced to stop and interact with those officers, and that is being temporarily detained) without any reasonable suspicion before the stop. He then has to cooperate and prove his innocence of a crime they never had any reasonable suspicion to stop him for in the first place? That's ludicrous and 100% totally and completely contrary to the Bill of Rights.

And it's not simple and innocent either. Precedent is a REAL thing in law. If there's precedent of being allowed to "bend" (break) the constitution in this way then that gives a very real footing to laws that would make the same "bend" (break). Being allowed to temporarily detain people without reasonable suspicion and then force them to answer questions under penalty of "refusal" being considered its own reasonable suspicion has some pretty far reaching consequences. Allowing it to happen is allowing the GENERAL power to detain people without cause and force them to prove their innocence by literally making it a crime to refuse to try to prove your innocence. Imagine all the horrible ways such a power could be used. THAT is why people refuse to comply with such usurpation of power, even if it us just "easier" to show your papers.

It's hard to even answer that, because actually what you say is quite jumbled.

For example, your "translation" is somewhat of a translation of part of the 5th amendment...just not the part you quoted, and has some off parts mixed in. There's actual text in the 5th amendment that says: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and THAT is the part about, well, not being compelled compelled to be a witness against himself. And there is no exception to that for grand juries...the grand jury part is completely separate from that, towards the beginning of the amendment, and has to do with requiring a grand jury before things such as very serious crimes (i.e. capital, or otherwise infamous).

I get the impression you may not have actually seen the full text of the amendment. That might help. Here it is:

"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."

He cannot be forced to act as a witness against himself. Very simple. The prosecution cannot call the defendant to the witness stand if he doesn't want to. Other people can very much be subpoenaed for their testimony and have to get on the stand. The defendant cannot.

It also means that any time a person feels that a line of questioning might lead to something indicating their guilt in something they can refuse to answer by pleading the 5th amendment.

No problem. In fact...I might as well just post a plain modern English translation here:

The 5th amendment for people that only speak modern English (ya know...most people).

Amendment Five: You can't put people on trial for really really big-deal type crimes without doing a grand jury first (unless they're military or this is a war zone). You also can't keep putting someone on trial for the same thing over and over; if they're innocent once it's done, can't try again. You also can't force a person to get on the witness stand in his own trial if they don't want to, and in general nobody has to answer any questions that they think might incriminate themselves in something. You also can't execute/jail/restrict the rights/confiscate the property of anyone without proper due process being followed (which means there's certain well defined things that can be done at reasonable suspicion -> probable cause -> actual arrest -> trial -> conviction -> etc., without that process you can't do bad things to people). And you also can't go around using people's stuff for public usage (i.e. taking private land for a public park, or commandeering a vehicle for a chase) without paying them a proper amount of money for what you took.

Bam.

It's specifically the "due process" stuff that most the people in this video don't understand. Yeah, without due process an officer can't forcibly search your car...but reasonable suspicion (i.e. the noticeable smell of an illegal substance) is part of that due process and changes that and gives them the legal right to temporarily detain you (like a traffic stop) and investigate further (like search the place where the noticeable smell is coming from).

However, some of the people in these comments aren't much better. For example, the guy at the checkpoint (which are typically just random places on the road INSIDE the U.S. normal roadways, not at the actual border crossings) was stopped (which is temporary detention, he's forced to stop and interact with those officers, and that is being temporarily detained) without any reasonable suspicion before the stop. He then has to cooperate and prove his innocence of a crime they never had any reasonable suspicion to stop him for in the first place? That's ludicrous and 100% totally and completely contrary to the Bill of Rights.

And it's not simple and innocent either. Precedent is a REAL thing in law. If there's precedent of being allowed to "bend" (break) the constitution in this way then that gives a very real footing to laws that would make the same "bend" (break). Being allowed to temporarily detain people without reasonable suspicion and then force them to answer questions under penalty of "refusal" being considered its own reasonable suspicion has some pretty far reaching consequences. Allowing it to happen is allowing the GENERAL power to detain people without cause and force them to prove their innocence by literally making it a crime to refuse to try to prove your innocence. Imagine all the horrible ways such a power could be used. THAT is why people refuse to comply with such usurpation of power, even if it us just "easier" to show your papers.