Are we served best by political rhetoric that positions and promotes "Americans against Americans" or by political rhetoric that positions and promotes "Americans against bloated, incompetent governmental bureaucracies"? I submit that the Constitution of the United States of America was not written to define how citizens of the USA deal with each other, but how we permit our government to deal with us, The People.
We, and our rights, are being trampled on by our personal failures to question our government and our blind acceptance of misleading platitudes in place of knowledge and accuracy.
In spite of what Reverend Al Sharpton, Reverend Jesse Jackson, and the Press would have us believe regarding Michael Vick, Michael Jackson, and other criminal defendants (but not about the Duke lacrosse players), we MUST presume that Mr Vick is innocent, at least until he is proven guilty in a court of law. WRONG! We, The People, are free to make whatever presumptions we choose to make, whether they be arrived at upon thoughtful inquiry or stupid acceptance of nonsense. However, We, The People, in our Constitution have set a different standard to which the government must adhere. Is the Constitution the source of the often cited phrase of "Presumption of Innocence?"
That font of facts, Wikipeadeia, says, "Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments." See also Coffin v. United States:
U.S. Constitution, Amendment V: 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 offense 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.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment VI: 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.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amazing, no "Presumption of Innocence" is imposed upon the citizenry, and no constitutional power or fodder for the Thought Police. Thus, I am free to presume that Mr. Vick is guilty of all manner of dastardly deeds and crimes, and under the First Amendment I am free to state my opinion publicly to anyone who is so unfortunate as to be within the sound of my voice or the wide coverage of my written words.
So, what is the "Presumption of Innocence?" It is the framework that establishes that you and I cannot be compelled to "prove" our innocence against unproven allegations from a powerful governmental system which presumes (and therefore prejudges our) guilt. It is not a club to prevent the citizenry from rejecting individuals, distasteful individual behavior, and ineffective government officials.
One last thought on prosecution — the legal proceeding leading to state sanctioned punishment. It is greatly different from persecution. You and I do not have the power to prosecute people. However, we have the power to persecute people. What is persecution? Today's politically correct definition is: "To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs." Interestingly, Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary (1996) has a more traditional and accurate definition: "To harass in a way that causes suffering, esp. because of principles or religious belief: oppress."
We, The People, must reclaim our right to publicly harass (i.e. To annoy or disturb persistenly) individuals and organizations which demand our silence and acceptance while they spew false, immoral, destructive, and traitorous concepts and philosophies. Silence is no longer golden, it has become self-destructive.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Other posts of interest
Aug 8th, 2007
Loading ...