Courts Consistently Violate the Fifth Amendment

Here’s an example:  If I had a car and drove it to the gas station for a tank of gas and filled it up, do you think I would complain that I couldn’t drive my car?   For one thing, people would give me weird looks.  I could say a car can not be taken to the store, used for errands, or used to pick up people, without gas in the tank.   People would agree with me.  None of those things can be done without gas in the tank.  But if I kept on complaining that I couldn’t drive my car, people might want me arrested for acting like an idiot.  

The same reasoning should be applied to the Fifth Amendment.  Since a court trial is due process of law, an adventurous prosecutor might want to force the accused in a capital case to testify against themselves.  The judge and the person might consider it contempt of court.  But to be grammatically correct, the prosecuter has the right to force him to tell the whole truth whether he likes it or not. 

If the accused were asked if he had committed murder and he claimed his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, the prosecutor could point out that since it was a court trial and considered due process of law, he had the right to compel him to testify against himself.  It doesn’t matter if over two centuries of court trials have allowed people to forego testifying against themselves.  It was unconstitutional to allow that to happen.  

According to the rules of grammar, a sentence has a subject and a predicate which qualifies the sentence.  Due process of law qualifies the second portion of the Fifth Amendment.  Examples besides the car and gas example might be:  This store is open everyday EXCEPT FOR SUNDAY.  This person will loan people money UNLESS THEY DON’T HAVE MONEY TO LOAN.  No person can be served an adult drink WITHOUT PROPER IDENTIFICATION.  If people went to a store, went to someone for a loan, or was disappointed because they didn’t think a bar would serve them a drink, the qualifiers of the sentences would determine whether they could do what they wanted to do or not. 

I’d love to hear a prosecutor or judge interpret the Fifth Amendment properly as it is written and not as they think it is written.  Such a case may go to the Supreme Court.  But if they want to read the Fifth Amendment grammatically, I would hope they would be compelled to agree with me.