Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall be committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process of obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
The two most oft cited violations of the Sixth Amendment in the United States are 'right to a speedy trial' and 'right to counsel'. Courts are meticulous in their trial protocols that basically uphold the Sixth in regard to juries, and trial rights. However, there is some disagreement about whether people can inadvertently waive their right to counsel in both interrogation and at trial by means of intimidation.
Let's start with speedy trials. For one, that's a subjective notion. What is speedy? It generally means, without undue delay. We all know of one glaring example where this is blatantly ignored. Guantanamo Bay. In cases that are considered 'sensitive to national security' the government will often hold prisoners for an extended period without trial as they try to amass evidence against the accused. In the case of GitMo Detainees, they aren't strictly entitled to Constitutional Rights (a matter of debate) but for an example of a born and bred American having such a right dismissed, look no further than Chelsea Manning, the trans soldier who was convicted of espionage in 2013 in the Wikileaks Scandal. She was in pretrial confinement for over 800 days. Her confinement was deemed 'reasonable' by a judge, but was it? If she had not exposed embarrassing truths about the government, perhaps the ruling would have been different.
Right to Counsel is one of the major points of the Miranda Rights, read to people as they are arrested, but in some cases the right to an attorney is waived. The question is, are these occasions really voluntary or coerced. Of course there are cases of police trying to get people to 'talk' without an attorney present, and there is really nothing that can be done about that. If you have been read your rights, what you say is really on you. However, waiving counsel as a child is tricky.
Children, by law, cannot sign contracts. So, when they go to court, if they wish to waive counsel, their parents have to sign off. Well, parents, in the interest of helping their children, might waive counsel if they are manipulated into believing this would be better for their kids. And then, kids without counsel are at the mercy of the court with absolutely know legal know-how. This might seem unlikely but in the infamous 'Kids for Cash' scandal in Luzerne County, PA, one of the tip offs that something was not right was that a large chunk of children were being put into juvenile detention after waving their right to an attorney. When asked, parents admitted to child legal advocates they they were told things would be easier if they waived their rights. While the judges involved in the scandal went on to prison no one was ever held accountable for the gross injustice these kids faced at the loss of their Constitutional Right to counsel by way of intimidation.
Amendment VII: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.
Essentially, this amendment solidifies the right to civil jury trials, and makes jury findings sacrosanct, unable to be overturned by the judge or another court.
Well, we know the right to file a lawsuit is intact. People file lawsuits over frivolous things all the time. The second clause, however, is where concern comes in. In civil cases, the case of punitive damages has caused more than one judge to stop in and overrule a jury, unconstitutionally.
Remember that case of the grandma who spilled hot coffee on herself and won millions from McDonalds? Well, the judge overruled that punitive damage claim and she ended up getting upward of $400k instead. Still a tidy sum, but the change is a direct violation of the 7th Amendment.
Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be require, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments imposed.
The government has taken advantage of the subjectivity of this amendment to do almost anything it pleases. Who could say $1million bail is not excessive? a Rockefeller, perhaps. And yet, such a bail is common in capital crimes. Excessive fines? Well, tell that to the drivers of Virginia, who could pay up to $3000 for a speeding violation. But terms like 'excessive' are relative. If you can argue that the crime is bad enough, any fine could be seen as reasonable by a court willing to be liberal with definitions.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment is also subjective. To some, waterboarding is not cruel or unusual. To some, prison confinement at all is cruel and unusual. It's difficult to navigate this Amendment in any sort of black and white way because it is almost entirely based on perspective. That said, a reasonable case can be made that Capital Punishment is cruel and unusual given that it gives the state the right to decide how long you live and by what means you die.
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Ahh, now we are getting into the fun stuff. So, this Amendment tells us everything we need to know about the intention of the Founding Fathers in regard to personal rights and liberty. That is, they believed that the Bill of Rights was highlighting some of the most important explicit rights of the people, NOT that these are the only protected rights we retain. So, in interpreting the Constitution, SCOTUS should always err on the side of individual liberty. Always.
It is safe to say they do not. I mean, with every wave of SCOTUS rulings there is at least one ruling that denies the rights of individuals in favor of the logic that there is nothing 'explicit' in the Constitution to protect such a right. That is, of course, nonsense. The Ninth Amendment protects all implied rights of citizens. All. And forcing people to buy insurance, or sell the government their property, or pay income tax, or be drafted, or attend any function, organization, or school against their will is a violation of the Ninth Amendment.
We are born with the right to live freely. Every time the government decides we must do something against our personal will, with the exception of something that would violate the rights of others, they are in violation of the Ninth Amendment.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to teh United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Another big one. This one, like the Ninth Amendment has all but been completely ignored by all three branches of the Federal Government for over a century. It would take pages and pages to point out all the examples of how things like the Commerce Clause, Congress' right to tax, and twisting have taken the Federal Government to the position it has today, doing things never imagined by the Founding Fathers.
Suffice it to say, the Federal Government has few actual jobs. National Security, Borders, Interstate Commerce (which is all but unnecessary at this point), protection of citizens' Constitutional Rights, Minting money, Federal roadways and post, and taxation to cover JUST these jobs. The end. The. End. Currently we have 15 executive departments, including Agriculture and Education (do you remember them being mentioned in the list of jobs the Federal government has?). There are also 88 Senate committees. Do you want to know how many of them have nothing to do with their Constitutional Role of Federal Government?
The Tenth Amendment is a huge issue and would take it's own post (perhaps it will get one), but suffice it to say if more people realized what the actual role of Federal Government was, they might be shocked. As of now, we look to them as our main government. They never were intended to be. State and Local political holds politician accountable while giving people more control over their own rights and lives.
And that brings us to the end of the Bill of Rights segment. I encourage all of you to take an active interest in learning more about these Amendments and how they are being mutilated for the 'greater good' or for political interests. Never has there been a more important time to have this discussion, what with college students declaring the right to 'free speech' to be hateful and oppressive. We are fast headed to a place where these sacred natural rights could be ripped completely from our grasp for the sake of politically correct coddling and 'security'. Every one of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights is ESSENTIAL to a free society and non-negotiable.
No comments:
Post a Comment