Saturday, July 01, 2006

When was the 6th Amendment Repealed?

From: JerseyGOP a now defunct pro-Republican web site advocating small government and upholding law.
AuthorTom Schneider
When was the 6th Amendment Repealed?
"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 have been 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 for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
Amendment VI of the US Constitution
While our Constitution seems to be under constant attack these days form many fronts there is apparently one amendment we surrendered years ago. Currently there is a prominent US businessman who has been held for over two years in prison without a trial, stripped of his assets, and even for a time denied legal counsel.
He was once a darling of the conservative movement, helping the successful launch of The Weekly Standard and Bill Kristol’s career in the media. When The Weekly Standard was on the brink of failure he was the sole advertiser, promoting not his own products and services, but public service announcements supporting a national sales tax. He hosted forums where Kristol spoke alongside dignitaries like Margaret Thatcher. He wrote reports that strengthened the positions of members of congress like Dick Armey, and think tanks like GOPAC. Now that he is imprisoned with fewer rights than those granted to Gihad-Johnnie everyone seems to have forgotten him and the Sixth Amendment.
Martin Armstrong was once the founder and head of The Princeton Economic Institute, in Princeton, NJ. There he did historical and current market analysis and wrote monthly reports on economic and political trends. He was incarcerated on Jan. 14, 2000 accused of defrauding Japanese investors out of $1 billion. He was once free on $5 million bond after pleading innocent and having his and his children’s possessions confiscated. The $1 billion number was gradually lowered to half of that, but still there is no trial date.
The judge believes he is hiding assets and that keeping him locked up indefinitely will cause him to turn these supposed assets over and admit guilt. This is not the way the American justice system is supposed to work. This is the kind of treatment Amnesty International protests in China. This is the way justice was carried out in communist Russia.
Today the First Amendment is under attack by Democrats and Republicans alike with Campaign Finance Reform, the Fourth by high-tech surveillance systems and national ID cards, and the Second by the usual suspects. Do any of these components of The Bill of Rights stand a chance at survival if we ignore the actual elimination of the Sixth? If our leaders will not stand up for the Constitutional rights of their supporters and political warriors, can the rest of us; not a part of the political game, have any hope of anyone defending our rights?
In this case not only is the sixth Amendment being violated but probably the Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth, as well. If the state cannot convict and is unwilling to even try then the accused remains innocent in the eyes of law and should not be imprisoned or have assets confiscated.
"There is surely a limit to how long someone will choose to stay in jail, even for $14.9 million," the appeals court said. And then added, "The length of his confinement must be viewed in the light of the value of the concealed property, which is unusually great."
If there is no proof of guilt then the numbers presented in the allegations should be meaningless. American Justice must be blind to class as much as it is to race.
The Associated Press reported that, "The court said in an eight-page ruling that Armstrong's repeated efforts to overturn the incarceration order by U.S. District Judge Richard Owen probably had weakened its coercive effect."
This is a blatant warning to all citizens not to challenge the authority of judges. It is a threat against US citizens asserting their constitutional rights. It is an insult to our system of government and stinks of bias and corruption.
If a person can receive additional punishment for simply annoying a judge by asserting Constitutional rights, doesn’t that approach ‘cruel and unusual punishment’?
Armstrong was first held on a contempt order that expired after 18 months. A newly issued contempt order last July 6 has no set expiration date. The court has now said that, "Armstrong will for the first time be faced with the prospect of indefinite confinement."
How long can a judge take The US Constitution into his own hands and suspend its authority? How does this coexist with the right to a "speedy and public trial"?
The press had a hissy-fit over the treatment of the terrorist detainees in Gitmo-Bay, in an effort to protect their rights. Where are they when a US citizen is denied rights in our own country? Where is Bill Kristol now? Is Dick Armey too busy planning retirement to defend the constitution and one of the original authors of the national sales tax plan?
Does the US Constitution have any actual meaning or protectors anymore?

3 comments:

cmannes said...

was not aware federal hearings were held on Sunday's

Admin said...

What are you talking about??? What has Sunday got to do with anything?

mannfm11 said...

I heard back in the 1990's that the Federal courts weren't too concerned with the Constitution.