King Barack Obama would stomp on the 6th amendment
IS Barack Obama a dictator? No, of course he isn’t. But would he like to be one? As he said:
“I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States.”
Although he calls that a “problem” that he has “struggled with throughout my presidency.” He’s also said:
“My cabinet has been working very hard on trying to get it done, but ultimately, I think somebody said the other day, I am president, I am not king,”
James Taranto looks at an exchange at Friday’s White House press conference between President Obama and CNN’s Jessica Yellin:
Yellin: Mr. President, to your question, what could you do–first of all, couldn’t you just have them down here and refuse to let them leave the room until you have a deal?
Obama: I mean, Jessica, I am not a dictator. I’m the President. So, ultimately, if Mitch McConnell or John Boehner say, we need to go to catch a plane, I can’t have Secret Service block the doorway, right?
Taranto:
By saying “I’m not a dictator,” then, Obama is admitting that he is ineffectual: that he lacks the political skill either to strike a compromise or to bend his opponents to his will. He concluded his press conference in an even more passive vein, hoping that “Congress comes to its senses a week from now, a month from now, three months from now.”
Mindful of all that, let’s see what Ryan J. Reilly has to say about Barack ‘I have a drone’ Obama:
The Obama administration believes it could technically use military force to kill an American on U.S. soil in an “extraordinary circumstance” but has “no intention of doing so,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter disclosed Tuesday.
Holder’s March 4 letter was disclosed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who had asked whether the Justice Department believed President Barack Obama had the legal authority to order a targeted strike against an American citizen located within the United States.
The Obama administration, Holder said, rejected the use of military force where “well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.” But in theory, it’d be legal for the president to order such an attack under certain circumstances, Holder said.
Wow.
The 6th amendment is generally thought of as the one guaranteeing a “fair trial”, but actually it is a combination of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments that fully guarantees it, because together they guarantee specific rights that are components of the trial process.
The 5th amendment guarantees the right to be charged in an indictment, the right not to be tried twice for the same crime, the right not to be forced to incriminate one’s self, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. It would be hardly “fair” for the government to have no witnesses but just put the defendant on the witness stand and force him to testify against himself.
The 6th amendment is more to the point. It guarantees a right to speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature of the charges, to be confronted with the witnesses, to have compulsory process for getting witnesses and to have counsel. Note that there is no guarantee of a jury of 12 persons who are the peers of the defendant. Nor of unanimity of the verdict.
The Fourteenth Amendment makes these amendments applicable to the states. The Bill of Rights ws originally applicable onlt to the federal government, not the states. But the vast majority of criminal trials are in state courts. The 6th amendment would be pretty hollow if it did not apply to the states.
Spotter: Cheryl
Posted: 6th, March 2013 | In: Politicians Comment | TrackBack | Permalink
