Sixth Amendment

Americans Have Lost VIRTUALLY ALL Of Our Constitutional Rights

by


Painting by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com

– Americans Have Lost VIRTUALLY ALL of Our Constitutional Rights (ZeroHedge, Oct 17, 2013):

This post explains the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution – and provides a scorecard on the extent of the loss of each right.  (This is an updated version of an essay we wrote in February.  Unfortunately, a lot of information has come out since then.)

First Amendment

The 1st Amendment protects speech, religion, assembly and the press:

Read moreAmericans Have Lost VIRTUALLY ALL Of Our Constitutional Rights

Scorecard: How Many Rights Have Americans REALLY Lost?

by


Painting by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com

– Scorecard: How Many Rights Have Americans REALLY Lost? (Washington’s Blog, Feb 21, 2013):

How Many Constitutional Freedoms Do We Still Have?

Preface: While a lot of people talk about the loss of our Constitutional liberties, people usually speak in a vague, generalized manner … or focus on only one issue and ignore the rest.

This post explains the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution – and provides a scorecard on the extent of the loss of each right.

Read moreScorecard: How Many Rights Have Americans REALLY Lost?

Teachers: How Are You Teaching US War Crimes, Destruction Of US Constitution?

by

– Teachers: how are you teaching US War Crimes, destruction of US Constitution? (Washington’s Blog, Feb. 25, 2012):

We teach limited government under a constitution that secures unalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This first right means that one’s life cannot be taken by tyrannical government.

The two-minute videohere is Defense Secretary Panetta claiming US law allows assassinating Americans if government merely says an American is guilty of a crime. Acts upon what the leader says at any given time rather than limited power under law is the etymology of dictatorship. “Law” based on the dictates of a leader is exactly what Nazi Germany had; their word for leader was fuhrer. (”Führer’, not fuhrer.)

The 5th and 6th Amendments of the US Constitution promise that if the government is to seize you, let alone assassinate you, they have to follow due process to secure persons’ unalienable rights:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury (that means a jury of one’s peers, not the dictatorship of “the leader”)… nor shall any person… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;…

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

Department of Defense Chief Counsel Jeh Johnson spoke to Yale’s law school and repeated the claim of government authority to dictate any American as a “terrorist” or “terrorist supporter” and be assassinated. This is in Orwellian contradiction to 5th Amendment rights that government cannot deprive you of your life without the above explicit due process. Importantly, Mr. Johnson, the War Department’s top “legal” voice, had more to say: government-dictated assassinations cannot be legally challenged through US courts.

President Obama instructed Justice Department lawyers to defend unlimited warrantless searches in Orwellian violation of the 4th Amendment. Such searches could be claimed as evidence of “supporting terrorism” and then not subject to review after assassination.

The 2006 Military Commissions Act and 2012 NDAA “legislated” dictatorial authority to declare any person a “terrorist supporter,” seize such persons, and hold them indefinitely and without rights.

Read moreTeachers: How Are You Teaching US War Crimes, Destruction Of US Constitution?

Obama administration attacks the sixth amendment

by

Obama administration seeks to change police questioning law

The Obama administration is urging the US Supreme Court to overturn a landmark decision that stops police from questioning suspects unless they have a lawyer present.

The effort to sweep aside the 23-year-old Michigan vs Jackson ruling is one of several moves by the new government to have dismayed civil rights groups.

President Barack Obama has already provoked controversy by backing the continued imprisonment without trial of enemy combatants in Afghanistan and by limiting the rights of prisoners to challenge evidence used to convict them.

The Michigan vs Jackson ruling in 1986 established that, if a defendants have a lawyer or have asked for one to be present, police may not interview them until the lawyer is present.

Any such questioning cannot be used in court even if the suspect agrees to waive his right to a lawyer because he would have made that decision without legal counsel, said the Supreme Court.

However, in a current case that seeks to change the law, the US Justice Department argues that the existing rule is unnecessary and outdated.

The sixth amendment of the US constitution protects the right of criminal suspects to be “represented by counsel”, but the Obama regime argues that this merely means to “protect the adversary process” in a criminal trial.

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, said the 1986 decision “serves no real purpose” and offers only “meagre benefits”.

Read moreObama administration attacks the sixth amendment