Show me that in the Constitution
It’s right there in the wording:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
That’s a negative right. A right conferring a duty of non-interference. Most of the rights listed in the Bill of rights act this way, and the few Positive Rights that do exist, like the right to an attorney (or be provided one), are
there to protect the negative rights. To ensure those rights aren’t unduly or implicitly alienated from the accused.
If you’re looking for an outright legal discussion in these terms, here you go:
WHERE does the Constitution confer a “right to be provided” with an attorney???
Alaska Slim obviously is a leftist open border extremist. He does not care a white about right & wrong or the law. He just goes along making it all up as he goes. I’m done talking to him.
That’s what it is though. It’s a right that confers a duty of non-interference. And in the American legal system, we use these terms to separate duties & rights.
It’s easy enough to verify that I’m right here.
You got that from me pointing out how our own legal system, describes itself?
Pointing out an objective fact of our system, makes me political?
Now whose being absurd?
How about answering my question, AS? WHERE does the Constitution confer a “right to be provided” with an attorney??? It doesn’t and NO left-wing-inspired “SCOTUS opinion” changes that.
Incorporation doctrine with the 14th amendment Changed it. Right to a attorney, means effective counsel, and if you can’t afford it, you must be provided one.
The State can’t be tyrannical, and deny rights to people bureaucratically simply by levying them with criminal charges that they don’t know how to fight on their own.
Border wall construction progresses in New Mexico
Aug. 18, 2018 - 3:23 - Why is the wall so important? U.S. Border Patrol chief shares insight on ‘Fox & Friends.’
That’s nonsense and you know it, AS. The 14th Amendment does NOT, in any fashion, say that anyone is entitled to have an attorney provided for them.
It means rights to the individual cannot be denied.
The State can & has done that, when it could refuse offering counsel.
BS. Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone has a “right” to be represented BY an attorney??? It doesn’t…period.
A.S makes up his own constitutions and laws. Don’t make him face reality, he might explode
Gideon vs wainwright was upheld for this reason. We put a man way who was innocent, because he didn’t have access to counsel
Facts are facts.
Dude, I’m not the one whose never heard of Natural law, or how our own legal system describes itself.
You shouldn’t pick fights like this when you’re a populist whose a lightweight on legal theory.
Still, it’s NOT in the Constitution. The Gideon decision is an OPINION by a left-wing court intent on expanding “rights” WAY beyond what the Constitution said. It was this same court (mostly) that claimed that LEOs were REQUIRED to inform suspects of their “right” to remain silent prior to questioning, which ALSO is a perversion of what the Constitution actually says.
It comes with the definition of what “to have the assistance of counsel for his defense” means. They did this in the 18th century; the only change Gideon vs Wainwright made was that it was then expanded to State-level, non-felony offenses.
If the Founding generation acted like the phrase meant this, I don’t see what you have to object over.
Apparently Alaska_slum is a legal constitutional expert. He got a pair of magic glasses with his law degree that allows him to see things in the Constitution that none of the great unwashed are able to see .
We see in history the Founders did it. Straight after we adopted the amendment in 1791, we were assigning Public Defenders to “indigent” people.
Why would they do it, if the Constitution didn’t mean it?
That is the point of civil disobedience, to force the state to compound its errors until remediation becomes necessary. If you are hiding the crime from the state to avoid the erroneous punishment, then you are not serious about reform and need not be taken seriously as a reformer. You are merely breaking the rules to gain an advantage over any competition foolish enough to follow them.