"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 offence 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."

The Fifth Amendment covers a number of issues. The most familiar being the "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" part. Everyone sees these people on TV invoking their "Fifth Amendment Right" when being questioned on the stand, but that's just a small part of this Amendment.

In order to be tried for a capital or otherwise "infamous" crime (unless you're a member of the armed forces during a time of war or "public danger"), you must have had an indictment handed down from a grand jury.

You cannot be tried twice for the same crime. I, personally, read this one differently than the Supreme Court does. It states quite simply that you cannot be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. To me, that means that you can't be tried twice for the same capital crime (one in which you would be at risk of losing your life (or limb?)). If they had meant that you couldn't be put at risk twice of losing your liberty, then they would have stated "life, limb, or liberty".

You cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law. This part is extremely important these days with some law enforcement agencies being so quick to "confiscate" people's vehicles, or property without doing so through a trial. There was a town in Louisiana that would confiscate your vehicle if they "suspected" you of having drugs in it. I'm pretty sure they were sued and lost on that one though…after many people that were just driving though, suffered this violation.

You cannot have your private property taken for public use without just compensation. The government isn't supposed to invoke "eminent domain" without compensating you justly for your property that they are taking for public use. This eminent domain issue became a much larger animal when the Supreme Court, (in the 2005 case of Kelo v. City of New London, Ct) ruled in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. However, on June 23rd, 2006, President Bush signed Executive Order 13406, limiting the Federal Government's ability to steal…err…take personal property to actual public use. I've tried to research the Tennessee state law regarding this, but I've been unsuccessful in finding anything substantive that the state legislature has done to restrict this and protect private property owners. If someone out there has any information regarding the state's stance on this, please post this and inform us of this.