The Fifth Amendment- The Refusal to Testify in a Criminal Case

The United States Constitution, The Bill of Rights, The Fifth Amendment, "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."
Lorber, Janie. "Uninvited White House Guests Take the Fifth at Hearing." New York Times [New York] 21 Jan. 2010, New York ed.: A24. New York Times. New York Times Company, 20 Jan. 2010. Web. 6 May 2010.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/us/politics/21crasher.html

The Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the United States allows for protection from government authority during the legal process. The Fifth Amendment covers a wide spectrum of legal protections from legal procedures and Refusal to Testify in a Criminal Case is one those. The Refusal to Testify in a Criminal Case is when the government cannot punish a criminal for exercising his right to silence. This is seen very often usually in Television shows where the criminal usually says, "I plead the Fifth" excising his right to silence.

In the article "Uninvited White House Guests Take the Fifth at Hearing" by Janie Lorber, it recounts the events of a court hearing that took place on January 20, 2010. On November 24 of the previous year, a couple was accused allegedly sneaking into the White House for the First State Diner although they were not invited to attend. In the court hearing the couple, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, freely used their Fifth Amendment right when asked to recall the events of that night on November 24. Although many thought that, their events were immoral and that the Fifth Amendment did not apply when taking about the safety of the President their rights were not denied. This shows that the constituion is still living and in action because even though there are some tough situations the constitution is protecting everyone with no discrimination or law takes opposes or strips the rights of said people.

In my opinion, this article is bittersweet. It is bittersweet because it perfectly shows how the Constitution was set up to be, yet the people in the article used it as an advantage and as a slap to the face to the government. I say this because no one can do anything in this situation because it is unconstitutional to strip someone of their rights, rights that the founding fathers had a difficult time trying to achieve. I think that this article is important because it shows how sometimes the Constitution was not set up to foretell future situations and it is important because the safety of the President and other important officials is now at hand. If people are getting smarter and using the Constitution to connive is it unconstitutional to strip them of their constitutional rights?