The Problem With the 5th Amendment

 

We've recently been treated to the spectacle of Anthony Fauci invoking the 5th amendment 111 times and the head of ActBlue invoking it 47 times as well as dozens of others each of whose invocations left Americans seething inside and muttering that this isn't 'justice' as that term is typically understood.

And they're right.

Imagine being called into the boss' office and being asked  "Did you tell Jeff it was okay to pay this invoice?"  and replying that you respectfully decline to answer on grounds that doing so might get you fired?  No, you can't imagine that, can you?  Yet when Fauci is called before his boss (or, more appropriately, the Board of Directors) that's exactly how he answered their questions.

Now, true, your boss can only fire you, but Congress can refer you for prosecution and that might mean prison time among other things, so the 5th amendment protects you from putting yourself in prison, but...

Congress is not asking such questions on behalf of Congress.  They're asking on behalf of the people who pay the bill, the taxpayers.  And they're asking about job-related events while government employees were being paid to do some job.

What to do?  What to do?

I have a solution, and I can't understand why no one else has offered it before, because it's simple and straight-forward:

When someone is offered a taxpayer-funded position, whether in government or external to it, that offer of employment must come with the understanding. explicit and in writing if needs be, that the employee voluntarily surrenders their 5th amendment right against self-incrimination for any matter that concerns the job for which they are/were employed and paid.

The CEO of ActBlue is still protected, but Anthony Fauci wouldn't be.  Lois Lerner (remember her?) could be asked  "Did you treat some groups of tax filers differently based on their political leanings?"  and she would not be able to avoid answering and would have to answer 'yes' or 'no' risking prosecution either for malfeasance or for perjury.

Is this the solution to the problem of the 5th amendment getting in the way of the administration of justice?  If this were implemented now or soon, would it be the automatic sump pump the swamp has needed all along?

Yes, the number of people applying for or accepting tax-funded employment might suffer a decline, but the ones then considering government employment 'too risky' are exactly the ones we don't want working for the government.

Problem solved?  Maybe.

 

Posted Without Comment

 

Regarding Islam

 

The Time Has Come

 

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing-wax —
Of cabbages — and kings —
And why the sea is boiling hot —
And whether pigs have wings."

It's time, also, to consider what the Founders meant by the text of the First Amendment.  Did they, I wonder, mean to include political ideologies bent on world conquest that protect themselves by wrapping a camouflage cloak of 'religion' around them?  Did they really mean that we should clasp such a viper to our breast?

I speak, of course, of Islam, a religion-in-name-only, adherence to which involves a committment to the destruction of the western values upon which the United States was based.  It seems counter-intuitive that the Constitution (which we are assured is not a suicide pact) requires us to harbor within our midst persons who are dedicated to our destruction.

It's time for Congress to assert that Islam and its practice is not a religion as the term is normally understood, and that Islam is not a religion as the term was understood at the passage of the Bill of Rights.  That is: the Bill of Rights was never meant to protect a conquering army merely because it claims a religious exemption.

Why now?  What happened that suddenly makes this "an issue"?

Early this morning as revelers in New Orleans (LA) celebrated the start of a new year, an Islamic terrorist, possibly aided by presently unknown co-conspirators, drove a truck bearing an ISIS (black) flag into the crowd killing 15 and injuring many others.  Some of the deaths were due to the terrorist shooting into the crowd with, some reports say, firearms reported stolen in New Jersey.  A few hours earlier, the same scenario played out in several places in Western Europe.  We are at war.

The practice of Islam must be treated as we treated Communists.  We didn't allow them to enter the country.  If they somehow got in by hiding their Communist bona fides, we revoked their citizenship and deported them.  It was merely a matter of self-protection.

Failure to do this — and soon — means facing eventual dissolution of the United States of America.

 

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

Mike Vanderboegh, may his soul be at rest, often remarked that the Roman Empire fell, among other reasons, because they could not satisfactorily answer one critical question: (in Latin) Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?;  (in English) Who will guard the guards?  If the American Empire falls, it will be for the same reason.  It may, in fact, be true that every empire falls in the same way.

We are watching the installation of an undeniable two-tier justice system eerily reminiscent of countries we justifiably sneer at as "banana republics":  if you are allied with the right people, you will be punished lightly or not at all for any transgressions;  if you are allied with the wrong people, no sin is too slight to warrant draconian punishment even, or especially, if there was no identifiable 'sin' at all.  The latest example, only one of dozens or hundreds, is the imposition of a monumental fine for engaging in typical, normal business practices.  I refer, of course, to the $454 million fine (including interest) levied against Donald Trump for fraudulent business dealings — for which the State was unable to identify a single person who claimed to have been defrauded.

That fine is the largest fine imposed on an individual in all of recorded history.  Yes, corporations have been fined greater amounts, but they are corporations, often with assets that dwarf even the Trump organization, and certainly larger by orders of magnitude than anything Donald Trump ever claimed.  As a result, Trump is unable to find a bonding company that will issue a bond for it, and New York State law is that one may not appeal a verdict without posting a bond for the full amount of the judgement.  Trump will be forced to pay the judgement in cash and hope to have the fine reduced on appeal.

Anyone who hasn't already said to themselves "Wow, that sure doesn't sound like 'justice' is probably named Letitia James or Arthur Engoron.  NYS Governor Kathy Hochul has already made a public service announcement in which she assured all the movers-and-shakers doing business in New York that they have nothing to worry about unless they're named 'Trump'.

In fact, it appears Trump has acquired the proper amount of cash and is preparing to pay the fine preparatory to an appeal.  The outcome of that appeal is in doubt because it's the New York State Court of Appeals, after which the next stop is the New York State Supreme Court before a final appeal can be made to the United States Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Kevin O'Leary and several other investment brokers have all halted — full stop — all investment into anything in the state.  Unless a more rational court puts a stop to this embarrassment, Judge Arthur Engoron and NYS AG Letitia James have just strangled their employer.

 

Nothingburger

 

I normally wait a day or two to let the dust settle before opining on current events.  This is long enough.

Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg yesterday indicted Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States, with 34 felony counts of falsifying records.  If you have not yet read the actual text of the indictment, I encourage you to do so now by clicking the provided link.  What you will find there (in case you don't want to take the time) is 34 nearly identical charges:

...with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of...

All of these 'crimes' are dated between February 14, 2017 and December 5, 2017 and refer to General Ledger entries for various vouchers and checks.  Nowhere in the indictment is there any reference to the '[]other crime' that is the predicate for the indictment.

A few days back, I quoted the 6th Amendment:

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.

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 defence.

I concentrated then on the 'compulsory process' provision — which is a serious problem for Alvin Bragg, since it allows Trump's lawyers even to subpoena the staff in Bragg's office and compel them to testify under oath and under threat of felony prosecution for perjury.  Ouchie!

This is much more serious now.  The indictment should have been quashed for not specifying the underlying crime that generated the 34 felony counts.  Which 'underlying crime'?  We're talking here about an alleged payment to Stormy Daniels for a NDA regarding an alleged affair with Donald Trump.  Bragg is indicting Trump for (we have to assume) not marking those transactions as 'Hush-money for Stormy Daniels NDA',  But, as Alan Dershowitz pointed out to Tucker Carlson last night, there has never been a (successful) prosecution for mischaracterizing 'hush money' payments.  Why?  Because forcing people to state the true purpose of such a payment constitutes forcing them to self-incriminate, and the 5th Amendment prohibits governments at all levels, including NY State and NY City, from doing that.  To the extent that NYS law requires that, the law is prima facie unconstitutional.

Beyond that, that 'underlying crime' is only so because it would have interfered with the election of 2016.  But look at the dates: February 14, 2017 to December 5, 2017.  The election was over by then.  There could not have been any interference with an election that ended and was certified before any of the 'election interference' that Trump is charged with.

Conclusion: Alvin Bragg's career is about to end, and that's just one more thing we need to thank Donald Trump for.  How could Bragg be that stupid?  I've recently started wondering if Bragg is actually working undercover for Trump, his main task being to get Trump re-elected in 2024.  If that were true, what would Bragg be doing differently?

 

"Compulsory Process"

 

Of all the words in the U.S.Constitution that I like, the words "compulsory process" are the ones I like best.  They appear as part of the 6th Amendment:

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.

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 defence.

"Compulsory process" means that, at trial, the defense can subpoena witnesses and force them to testify.  Yes, the 5th amendment protects them from having to testify against themselves, but they can be asked questions like "What did Miss Jones say on that occasion?" and that question they must answer truthfully or risk felony prosecution for perjury.

This is the beast that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg has now unleashed.  Do you think Trump's lawyers will put it to good use?  Does anyone think they will not?

Let the games begin.

 

Hallelujah!

 

Today, June 23rd, 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas, born on this day in 1948, delivered the majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, striking at the beating heart of New York's flagrantly unconstitutional Sullivan Act.

The Sullivan Act, passed in 1911, establishes strict gun control within New York State with particular application within New York City.  It guarantees that obtaining a personal firearm is going to be a long and costly bureaucratic nightmare.  Beyond that, obtaining permission to actually carry that firearm on your person is nearly impossible.  A few years back, I posed the question "How many concealed-carry permits are there in New York City?"  The answer I derived was '2,291'.  In a city of 8.8 million people, that is statistically zero.

Two New York residents who had 'possession' permits for their pistols (valid only at their home or business) wanted to carry those firearms concealed on their persons and were denied because, in keeping with the Sullivan Act, they were unable to demonstrate to the examiner that they had a need to be armed beyond simple self-defense.  Five other states (you can almost guess who they are, can't you?) impose similar or identical restrictions.  The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association funded the several lawsuits resulting from that denial, culminating at the Supreme Court as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Justice Thomas has several times in the past castigated his fellow justices for turning away 2nd amendment cases that were similar to Bruen, and it appears his complaining has finally borne fruit.  The 6-3 decision gave Thomas the pen since the 2nd amendment seemed to have been his pet project.  Finally, he has the ability to author a strong defense of the 2nd's original meaning.  The 135 page decision will take some effort, no doubt, but given Thomas' erudition, it will be worth every minute.

Thank you, Justice Thomas.  We have been waiting so long for this.  Happy birthday.

 

Update:  I have managed to actually read the official opinion (footnotes omitted) and there is something else in there that I didn't realize originally: NYSRPA v Bruen also explicitly instructs lower courts that when dealing with 2A issues strict scrutiny is the applicable level of judicial review.  That means that any new or existing law, when it appears before a lower court, the state must now make a compelling case that the law at issue is both compliant with the Constitution and necessary for the public safety.  When challenged, NYS will have to defend its $445 fee for doing a background check beyond that done (for free) by the federal government.  Good luck with that.  They will have to defend the overly intrusive 32 page questionnaire each applicant is required to complete.  Good luck with that, too.  Basically, the entire Sullivan Act is now at risk of being gutted like a perch.

 

California AWCA Struck Down

 

I'm just going to drop this here and let any interested reader draw their own conclusions.

https://thepriceofliberty.org/2021/06/14/californian-lies-so-blatant-even-a-judge-recognizes-them/

 

UPDATE:  6-22-2021

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals has extended the judge's original 30-day stay indefinitely, but didn't, apparently, reverse the ruling, although it's difficult to imagine a different reason than that the panel disagrees with the ruling's holding that the law was unconstitutional.

 

Corporate Charters

 

Here's a question you may have never before considered:  How does a corporation come into being?  Here's how:

A corporation comes into being because a group of investors, having decided to incorporate, asks a State for a (corporate) charter.  When the State issues that charter, the corporation springs into existence.  The corporation is a creature of the State that issued the charter.

People (and courts) sometimes treat corporations as if they were persons; they are considered 'artificial persons', 'artificial' meaning 'created'.  Because of this, they are often considered to have all the powers and rights of real persons, but this is not logically defensible.  A real person is the biological output of other real persons and can participate in producing other real persons, all without the intervention of the State.  None of that is true for artificial persons like corporations.  Corporations cannot create other corporations without the approval of the State;  they are, in this respect, sterile like mules.

Because a corporation is a creature of the State, it has only the attributes acquired by heredity from its parent.  That is, it can have only those powers that were endowed to the State by the State's creators, viz.: the people of the State.  Conversely, any powers that were withheld from the State by the people cannot have been passed on to the corporation.

A wide variety of powers were withheld from the States and from the federal government that, via Congress, creates new states.  Most of us are familiar with the Bill of Rights — which probably should have been called 'The Bill of Prohibitions' since it mostly lists things the federal government (and, by extension, States) are forbidden to do;  things like:  interfere with the free expression of peoples' opinions,  discriminate among customers based on their exercise of rights retained by real people,  &c.

So, if a State is forbidden to discriminate among its customers (i.e.: citizens), how can a corporation, a creature of that State, have such a power?  If a State is forbidden to block the free exercise of expression by its citizens, how can a corporation, a creature of that State, have such a power?  The answer is that a corporation cannot and does not have any such power.  Doing such acts is a violation of the corporate charter.  The proper remedy for a corporation that violates its charter is for the State to withdraw the charter, killing the corporation.

Adios, FaceBook, Inc.

Adios, Twitter, Inc.

Adios, MasterCard, Inc.

There are plenty of others waiting to feast on your carcasses.  There are lots of companies anxious to take up any slack your absence creates.  You will not be missed.

 

 

Timing Is Everything

 

There's a fresh new piece of anti-gun legislation being groomed for its prime-time appearance before a largely Democratic Congress.  It's called H.R.127 and it has all the elements of a gun-grabber's wet dream:

• universal background checks,
   
• psych evaluations on entire households,
   
• a ban on vast categories of heretofore-otherwise-lawful weapons,
   
• HUGE taxes and fees required for mere possession of what's left,
   
• mandatory periodic training,
   
• a publicly-accessible database of all gun owners (and their inventory?),
   
• and increases in the budget, authority, and power of the most corrupt of all corrupt federal bureaus and agencies, the Bureau of Alchohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Totally unconstitutional, of course, but when has that ever stopped Congress?  Why is it unconstitutional, you ask?  Stop me if I get any of this wrong...

Rule #1 of 'jurisprudence' world-wide is that later law trumps earlier law.  A law passed today can be repealed by a law passed tomorrow.  That's so straight-forward it almost doesn't rate putting it down on paper.  Then

1. The fundamental axiom of the American System is that 'rights' are an endowment from God or Nature or some other metaphysical entity that is outside of and above government and, in fact, pre-exists government.
    
2. Governments do not have rights;  they have powers and authorities granted to them by we the people, from whom all such power originates ('the consent of the governed').
    
3. The vehicle for granting such powers and authorities is The U.S.Constitution.  The Constitution was ratified and came into force in 1789.
    
4. The Second Amendment, concerning the right of the people to keep and bear arms, was ratified in 1791, two years after the Constitution.
    
5. In 1934, and then again in 1968, Congress passed gun control laws, justifying them as part of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.
    
6. Both of these acts should be considered unconstitutional because the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted in Article I of the Constitution in 1789.  If those powers ever included authority over firearms and other weapons, that authority was revoked in 1791 with the passage of the Second Amendment.  Timing is everything when it comes to 'constitutionality'.
    
7. That 'fresh new piece of anti-gun legislation' being prepped in the House suffers from the same disability.

But the worst part of H.R.127 isn't that it's unconstitutional.  The worst part is that it will be impossible to comply with.  The monstrous cost of attempting to comply will price most poor or minority families out of the market or, alternatively, send millions of them to prison.  Clearly, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) either hasn't given this much thought or simply doesn't care that she has codified a brand new poll tax on many of her constituents.

The former marks her as more stupid than Maxine Watters;  the latter as more cruel than Bull Connor.

Keep up the evil work, Sheila.

 

Ranks of Gun-owners Explodes

 

I'm hearing stories of people rushing to their local gun stores and panic-buying guns.  News reports suggest these are "pro-gun fanatics" doing the buying in anticipation of the need for self-defense armament in the face of the current corona virus pandemic.  That seems extremely unlikely.  All the known "pro-gun fanatics" already have guns and ammunition sufficient for their self-defense without the necessity of expanding their collections or stocking up.

No, I believe these are primarily first-time gun owners who are worried that the breakdown of civil society is going to impact them and their families harshly.  If they haven't already, they're suddenly realizing that in extremis, they are their families' best or only defense and their first thought is "I had better get myself a gun".  When they get to the gun store, they get a nasty shock.  A series of nasty shocks, actually.

One, there are long lines.  There are reports of lines wending out the door and down the block of people waiting their turn to get in so they can look at the merchandise and make their selection.  The lines are long because those who are busy making their selection are taking their time about it — because they don't know anything about guns and need lots of help from the harried staff — because they're first-time buyers.  Any reputable gun store will only sell you a gun if they're confident you're competent to operate it safely, therefore they take the time to show you the features of whatever you're buying.

Two, the selection is narrow because — hey, a store can only stock a certain amount of stuff, right?  In places like California, the selection is even narrower because only certain firearms are even legal to sell in that state.  Yes, California has an official list of firearms that may be sold or possessed within that state.  A Glock 17 in standard black may be legal whereas the same gun with a powder-coated finish may not.

Two(a), in some states (NY, NJ, CA again, IL, HI, maybe others) you need a 'permit to purchase' before anyone will even let you look at or touch a firearm in their store.  To get that PtP, you will need to visit your local police department or sheriff's office who will do a pre-BGC BGC.  They're busy with other things like crimes and your petty concerns are not high on their priority list.  When they do get around to you, they can take as long as they want before issuing the PtP.  NY and NJ are notorious for taking six months or more before you can even walk into a gun store to examine your impending purchase.

'Impending purchase'?  Yes, three, throughout the United States there is a mandatory minimum waiting period during which the Famous But Incompetent FBI will complete a background check to ensure you're legally entitled to purchase a firearm.  Almost everywhere, it's three (3) days, but in some places (California, again), it's ten (10) days.  Oh, you wanted that gun right now?  Yeah, sorry, but you can come by on Tuesday and pick it up, except...

Four, FBI, which does those background checks, is having a problem with staffing because of the Moo Goo Gai Panic, and just announced that it might take as much as twenty-eight (28) days to complete yours.  Aha, but the law says any BGC not completed in three (3) days is to be treated as a 'pass'!  Gotcha!  Well... no.  These days, when the FBI can't complete the check on time, they issue a 'conditional disapproval' — and they're issuing lots of CDs these days.  Sorry.  Game over.  Thank you for playing.  What '2nd amendment'?

Five, when those panicky first-time buyers get frustrated, they flip open their laptops and hit the web because it's easier just to buy your gun over the internet.  Suddenly, they discover that you actually can't buy a gun over the internet without having it shipped to a local Federal Firearms Licensee, the same people who can't handle the flood of new customers wanting to buy their wares.  Naturally, they will take time out of their busy day to help you fill out the Form 4473 for somebody else's merchandise, but you'll still have to have a BGC which could take as long as 3 or 10 or 28 days before you actually take possession of your new hardware.  That's after it gets shipped across country.

I don't know for certain, but I would bet a lot of money that many of those first-time buyers experiencing the roadblocks outlined above were, until a few days ago, hard-line supporters of 'reasonable restrictions on who can get a gun', and they are, also for the first time, beginning to understand why all those "pro-gun fanatics" were so upset over each new reasonable restriction.  They're faced with a situation that does not treat lack of preparedness kindly and is especially cruel to those who weren't even aware that they weren't prepared.

Welcome to the party, pals.

 

Inmates In Charge Of The Asylum

 

Notes from the front lines of the war against CoViD-19: This is (I think) Day-12 of our ordeal.  Bars and restaurants and other places where people typically congregate (including places of worship) are closed by diktat, Clearwater Beach is closed in the middle of Spring Break, school is out until at least April 1, everyone is on a de facto lock-down because — really, where can we go?  There have been about 160 deaths from exposure to CoViD-19.

'Seasonal flu' kills people at rates 100 times that, but (we're told) CoViD-19 hasn't 'peaked'.

Small businesses that rely on a more-or-less constant flow of paying customers are hurting so bad that many of them may not survive until they're allowed to re-open, but — not to worry! — the SBA has loans and grants to tide them over, and a bi-partisan budget expansion — paid for by you, of course, — will surely pass on its first appearance.  The employees of those businesses are furloughed because (a) the business is closed, and (b) they're not allowed to travel (or strongly discouraged).  Many of those employees are low-wage workers heavily dependent on tip income.  Ah, well, at least there's unemployment, and by now the mandatory two-week waiting period is just about over, and they'll be allowed to apply so they'll get their first check after (maybe) another week.  Or two.

Larger businesses have the advantages of scale and the ability to hunker down and mothball their capacity, so this mandatory shut-down is a huge boon to them as far as 'competition' is concerned.  Smaller businesses?  Bummer, Dude.

This artificial impact on businesses from coast to coast is a cratering event for the various stock markets and the economy in general.

Time for a reality check:  the earliest data we have on CoViD-19 comes to us from a cruise ship, the Diamond Princess.  That environment is 2,000-3,000 people in relatively close proximity for a week or more, passing germs back and forth at every meal.  Many of those passengers are older and are much more at-risk than is the general population.  That looks very like a 'worst-case scenario'.  And what conclusions can we draw from the Diamond Princess?

Worst case:  The Diamond Princess tells us that the contagion rate (who's going to catch it?) will probably top out around 20%.  For the U.S. population as a whole, that's 600,000 people, and 80% who won't catch it regardless.  20% of those infected (120,000) will show symptoms severe enough to require intervention, real quarantine and/or hospitalization, some of them in an ICU.  10% of that (12,000) will die.

We lose more than that to seasonal flu, and we lost way more than that to the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic during the Obama administration, and nobody got anywhere near this excited back then.  In short, this is not Captain Trips, and we are not all going to die, and we are almost certainly over-reacting.  The worsening economy is a net negative for Donald Trump whose re-election campaign will almost certainly focus on economic performance issues.

The biggest loser is the Constitution.  Isn't it amazing that what is almost certainly an ordinary virus is all it takes for the American people to look the other way when the government virtually repeals the First Amendment?  Peaceably assemble for dinner or a beer?  Nope, all those places are closed and we don't want you traveling, and we especially don't want you gathering in groups!  Freedom of worship?  Maybe after the crisis passes (heh heh heh).

Never let a crisis go to waste.

 

Guantanamo Bay

 

The United States maintains a naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, leased (wink wink nudge nudge) from the Cuban government in 1903 for an indefinite period for use as a 'coaling and naval station'.  It now also houses a military prison.  The U.S. government houses non-military 'terrorists' there because, the argument goes, the Constitution, especially the 5th amendment (self-incrimination), the 6th amendment (speedy trial, jury of peers, cross-examination of witnesses), and the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), doesn't apply outside the United States.  Really?

Let's take a look at some of those amendments.

The Fifth:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;  nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;  nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Note that nowhere therein does it say anything like 'citizen'.  It says 'person', the implication being that the government (who else deals with capital offenses and criminal cases?) is precluded from doing any of these things to anybody, citizen or not.

The Sixth:

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 defence.

'The accused'.  'All criminal prosecutions'.  Again, no hint that this applies only to citizens or that it applies only within the borders of the country — 'all criminal prosecutions'.  This is not a right being doled out, this is an instruction to the government:  follow this procedure.  All the time.  Every case.

The Eighth:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

...except for foreigners being held at Guantanamo Bay...  Nope, it doesn't say that.  Again, it's a plain instruction, applicable to everyone, everywhere, all the time, not restricted as to person, place, or time.

So the next time someone says "We can't close Gitmo!  Then we'd have to treat them like citizens and give them regular trials!" you can explain to them that we have to give them regular trials now because the Constitution is blind to the fact that these people aren't citizens and aren't here.

Of course, first you're going to have to overcome the barrier that the American people are blind to their own Constitution.

 

A Head Full of Misinformation

 

I had an interesting conversation the other day with a man I'll just call 'Richard'.  I was hawking my book, "Tipping Point", when he mentioned something he had heard or read just recently.  "Did you know," he asked, "that people on the 'terrorist watch list' can't fly on an airplane, but they can still buy guns?"  He was referring, I think, to a recent video from a California nut-turned-Jihadi exhorting American Muslims to hop on down to the nearest gun show and get a (machine) gun with no background check.

Where do you start if you are to turn back all the erroneous information Richard is now carrying around in his head?

In the first place, machine guns and similar weaponry (grenades, etc.) are and have been heavily regulated since 1934, and no one can get such stuff at gun shows or any other place without a thorough-going FBI background check lasting not just days, but months, during which the FBI will talk to people you've forgotten you ever knew.

Secondly, there is the issue of 'due process' which everyone glosses over so readily.  Recall that people on the 'terrorist watch list' are merely suspected, and we have no idea what it is they are suspected of, nor do we know how they got on the TWL, and (as we know from Ted Kennedy's experience) it can be damned difficult to get off that TWL once you're on.  Lots of people have the authority to put your name on the list;  almost no one has the authority (or the inclination) to take it off.  After all, it's not their name that's on the list.  Why should they be concerned?

Beyond that, if the government has something more than 'suspicion', the process is: arrest, arraignment, trial, verdict.  If the government has nothing more than mere suspicion, how is that an adequate basis for denying a person rights?  Perhaps we ought to expand the 'no guns' prohibition to 'no medical treatment' (better if they just die from their wounds, right?) and 'no shopping' (who knows what they might buy?  This suspected terrorist might be another McGyver).

If this train of thought makes you question the morality of having a 'terrorist watch list', then my day is complete.