The Constitution

The Compute-Center Constitution — Paper 2 (Due Process)

Kevin A. Sensenig | September 14, 2014 | September 25, 2014

Amendment 5 — Due Process

The idea is very straightforward.

The Text Of Amendment 5

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.

The Quote That I’ll Focus On

due process of law

Initial Statement On Teh Constitution — From Paper 1

Many of the first 10 Amendments, are designed such that they protect the citizen (the people) from government imposition (especially at-will imposition). The Amendments 1-10 grant rights and powers to the states and the people; and serve as a _template_ for _further_ such rights; and a set of powers are delegated (in the Articles) to the federal government (the branches, and now today the various agencies as part of the Congress’-and-President’s _legal_ definition of the federal government, the United States in some rendering).

In further papers I’ll set forth the implications of the premise, design, structure, theory, in some ways template nature, the directives, rights, and rights and powers to the states and the people. Then the role of agencies. Later I’ll have topics on our economic model, and what needs to happen.

My Statement On Due Process

due process

you’re charged with a crime. you get a lawyer.

due process _of_ the law.

the law as some sort of basis.

then, due process _of_ the law.

then, (really) the complicated, intellectual, paperwork, i-require-a-6-yeear-law-degree-to-figure-this-one-out “you’re charged with a crime. you get a lawyer.” due process. the Constitution.

the Consitution a 17 million page docuement appendix sayeth thus sayeth God on high[1],[2] that the law sayeht that thine shalt have a lawyer only if thine knoweth the 17 million page Constution and its appendices and knoweth in the first place how to ask for a lawyer at just the right time with the right prhasing and right empahasis and right authority and on tape that thou should have thought to provide for thineself in the first palace. and since thine had no such tape in certain instances then thine shulld recorourse to the lawyer in the first place that though did notst think of. but since thou didn’t not think of such said lawyer in the manner that thou could have at the time of appropirate jurisdiction, though has rightfully been denied the lawyer. and since though didn’st confess in such manner as though didst, without thine lawyer, which laawyer fromt eh 17 mil page document the Constitution th0ihg hasdts been convicte with thine own confession.

no, my law is “written ‘and the laws of the United States which shall have been written in Pursuance thereof [the Constitution]’” is 'due process of the law.’

then 'due process’ is… te statement “you’re charged with a crime. you get a lawyer.” Put in law.

There are other features of ‘due process’.

in pursuant of

the definition of

the ‘basis’ indicated (you can infer ‘basis’ from the due process directive)

the establishment directive

the Declaration ‘Creator’ term, “to start somewhere”

the Constitution

there is no religious test for elective office or to be an official in the government

the establishment directive is the first directive (with limits and rights indicated also as part of the directive)

in the first 10 amendments

the Constitution is not overtly any type of religious document

the reader can infer protections for religion, as an indicated premise

the reader can read directly the protections for religion

in January 2013 it was “thus sayeth the President Barack UN Obama: [the republicans] [he said Congress] if they don’t work in the way I insist, are about to create the next global economic catastrophe”.

he had just sent in Biden to work the Biden/McConnell 0.00417 efficiency ratio negotiations to get a law passed, a deal done, a budget dilemma solved — that is, the 0.00417 efficiency ratio to get something done. A law that everyone seemed to be content with (maybe) and that solved the immediate and mid-duration problem.

i guess that just didn’t work.

those zen buddhists in the psych unit. they just go on and on in this incoherent way about religion, not even things you can really make any sense of at all.

that’s what the psychiatrist said.

[ I had said, “I am a Zen Buddhist and I support the Lutheran Church.” I was standing in front of the large 16x20 photo in a frame in the hallway, the photo that the psych unit itself had put there. I had repeated this about 3 times, this exact phrase, in different contexts, over a couple of weeks.

But the psychiatrist said in the ensuing to-ongoing commitment, this individual, he just goes on and on in this incoherent way about religion, not even things you can really make any sense of at all. The expert, the professional, the idiot psychiatrist had said this, about me, in a hearing, with legal effect. I provided a rebuttal, my exact quote, but to rebut this point was insufficient and I was limited to 3 minutes defense in any case — for a matter of 90 days of commitment in a psych unit. The “due process”, of the State. Right. ]

There’s a correlation here. The State decided that because it had provided a lawyer who had 15 minutes to prepare with me immediately before the to-ongoing commitment hearing, and the psychiatrist had an entire legal team, and preparation time, and freedom to prepare and coordinate whatever notes and testimony, and people she or he could call, and computing resources, that that was sufficient, for “due process” and “protections”. What a fucking crock. The State. Right.

[ The current thinking in State law is “if we put it in law, it’s due process (of law)”). Idiots. A peril to the human race. ]

[ Thus the project undertaken, to r&d this stuff, the realm of psychiatry, from 2003 to 2013, and following with notes and reports, as a Zen Buddhist, just a little impatient. I’ll have formal PDFs on both what psychiatry has omitted from consideration (just about anything material)_ and steps to what I’ll call mental view and orientation (mvo), to reference and use actual material resource, for the individual going through these psych units, and in society — and stuck in the trap of the enforced State dependency layer of to-fund these psychiatrists and their idiot layer of theory and means; although some psychiatrists are at least a little helpful, and some staff as well. But the framework is peril, an idiot theory that enforces its own vacuous premise, rather than to seek and refer to the material, that is the material as noun and noumenon.

The mind that is before one, one’s own mind. Material resources, narrative, and so forth. The physical realm and the mental realm. The space provided by one’s own apartment or home, and the city street, or country landscape; or literature, art, and music. The body, breath, and mind.

The papers I have so far put forward a premise of both what psychiatry doesn’t have, and also this type of material resource, for the individual. Not that difficulties won’t still be difficulties — unless there’s a place to step to. The individual may find orientation through thought and contemplation and physical space; or narrative; or may find yet more difficulty; or may decide not to participate in this way at all. ]

[ For the initial set of papers, intended as material resource for both the everyday and for those in the mental health field who may find it useful, with what they have in other ways, see Mental View And Orientation — MVO — Set 1 (Initial Papers). ]

Back to legal structure and due process. Again, for the State (and probably all 50 of the States), the underlying of the law (with exceptions) is that “if we put in in law, then we have due process of law”.

No.

First, define due process, as a noumenon, a thing of reason, an object of mind.

Then, the basis of law, that supports this.

In which case you’ve begun to find a basis for law.

due process of the law

like a tree is of the earth

Now I know why the Miranda rights are stated the way they are.

I’m not sure why anyone would ever be able or pressured to sign away their Miranda rights.

The above should explain why, though. In society, there are individuals who have their own stories, and views therefrom. I’m not sure what is not clear.

But Miranda rights are only one feature.

It’s also, if someone is arrested and charged with a crime, “You’re charged with a crime. You get a lawyer.”

Footnotes

1. Likely here the State has a misapprehension of its “to apply ‘God’” It should be, rather, to consider the book Six Theories Of Justice, by Karen Lebacqz, and likely others, and to really consider these.

2. I challenge not ‘God’, here; but the State’s means and interpretation. The Law in Romans is a bit tricky to navigate; but the Judgment in James is left to the One. Yet, also, these are not the only interpretations of law and state/individual. I need to study this further. I wonder if someone has done or could do an analysis of the facts and character of States’ law in the US, to prove what basis they are given. I don’t have more specifics at this point.