TTTBE #5: Early Answer for Patrons (Patreon)

The answer to the question was (D).  Thomas is now 3-for-5 (60%) and has never enjoyed this segment more. 

This question tested whether you knew that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of procedural due process protected you from having the state freeze your wages without the opportunity for notice and a hearing.  The answer is yes, extending back at least as far as Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View, 395 US 337 (1969).  Thomas correctly chose (D), operating on the intuition that the law would not permit a creditor unilaterally to freeze all of your wages simply because a lawsuit is pending.

The most common wrong answer was (A), with many of you guessing that even though it seems unfair, it doesn't seem unconstitutional.  Given that there are some prejudment attachment arrangements that could -- at least theoretically -- pass constitutional muster, this isn't a bad guess.

Almost no one picked (B) ("there's a compelling state interest in protecting creditors") or (C) ("only the IRS hase the power of garnishment"), and those are indeed bad answers.

We hope you enjoyed playing along with TTTBE; there's more analysis forthcoming in Epsiode #33, and Question #6 will drop on Friday along with Episode #34!  Keep playing!