Why is access to an attorney a "god-given right", while access to health care isn't?

[newbitech]

I am seeing a real lack of experience coming out in this thread. Right to Counsel was derived from the practice of people accussed of a felony being completely denied the right to counsel, whether they could afford it or not.

The intention was never to provide "free counsel" to handicapped or poor people.

 

[erowe1]

CaptUSA has provided the Constitutional argument for right to counsel.

I don't think that he has. Isn't taxpayer funded legal counsel something that isn't in the Constitution itself, but that developed much later from courts legislating from the bench?

 

[CaptUSA]

I don't think that he has. Isn't taxpayer funded legal counsel something that isn't in the Constitution itself, but that developed much later from courts legislating from the bench?

We're starting to veer here. There are two issues. The right to counsel - very much in the constitution. And tax-payer funded counsel - not in the constitution, but in a SC interpretation. Sort of like Miranda rights.

I happen to think the interpretation is correct. If the government wants to prosecute someone, it shouldn't get an easier go at it just because the person has fewer funds.

 

[erowe1]

We're starting to veer here. There are two issues. The right to counsel - very much in the constitution. And tax-payer funded counsel - not in the constitution, but in a SC interpretation. Sort of like Miranda rights.

I happen to think the interpretation is correct. If the government wants to prosecute someone, it shouldn't get an easier go at it just because the person has fewer funds.

We're not veering. The question in the OP is about taxpayer funded counsel.

 

[CaptUSA]

We're not veering. The question in the OP is about taxpayer funded counsel.

You're on track, but there are a couple of other posts (including the one you quoted) that were about the right to counsel.

 

[Sunstruck-Eden]

Good question, but you probably don't really want the answer.

The right to an attorney is the only "positive right" in the Constitution. Why? It extends from your right to defend yourself from the government. If you have a right to defend yourself, you need the availability of counsel in order to exercise that right because the government would be able to deprive you of that right if you did not have an attorney. So to keep the government from removing your right to defend yourself, the constitution demands the government give you counsel.

Now, this doesn't work for health care. Why? Because government cannot invade your right to seek your own health care. If it did, it would be invading your rights. However, that does not mean the government had the duty to provide you health care.

so:

You do have a right to health care if you want it and want to pay for it. The government cannot take that away from you. It doesn't need to provide you with health care.

You do have a right to defend yourself. The government can easily take that away from you if it charges you with a crime. Therefore, to keep government from invading this right, it had to allow you be defended if you cannot afford it.

There's your answer. Well said (I give you an A+++++ lol).

 

[Davy Crockett]

From the Missouri Bar Association:

The Right of Assistance of Counsel

Among the landmark cases establishing the applicability of constitutional laws, none have been more important than the many cases dealing with the right to assistance of counsel. This important clause, provided in the Sixth Amendment, assures that no one will find himself alone in a court of law against overwhelming odds.

The guarantees of this provision stem from the basic tenets of our legal and judicial system. The American system is an adversary system. This means that through the battling of two opposing sides in open court, the whole story will be uncovered, the truth will be known and justice will be served. The right of all persons faced with the prospect of losing their liberty to the assistance of counsel is obvious. Such has, however, not always been the case. The development of this right, especially for those unable to afford an attorney, has only recently taken place.

Historically, the right to counsel has meant the right to retained counsel; that is, if the defendant could afford a lawyer, he had the right to use one. The poor defendant was denied this right. In early America, some states showed a greater concern for the impoverished defendant than did the federal government. These states provided for the appointment of counsel in cases punishable by death, with some states going so far as to provide counsel on all felony charges.

This was not sufficient protection, however, because many states were never required to do this. Even when they provided for the appointment of attorneys in the cases, judges would often fail to inform defendants of this right or would all too readily accept a waiver of the right.

Significant changes began to occur in the 1940s, when the U. S. Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution required an offer of free counsel to the poor in all felony cases in federal courts. If a defendant waived this right, the waiver had to be intelligent.

Further improvements came in the 1960s. A landmark case, Gideon v. Wainwright, led to a Supreme Court ruling that the states could no longer use a different standard than the federal government in the appointment of counsel to represent poor defendants. It decreed that free counsel must be appointed to represent all poor persons who were accused of a felony. By this ruling, the court established the unfairness of allowing an unrepresented defendant to face the combined forces of the state prosecutor's office and police investigators without any assistance.

This was not the end of the development of this important constitutional right. In 1972, the Supreme Court declared that whenever an accused is in danger of losing his liberty, he must be given an appointed attorney. This meant that even misdemeanor cases, where the possibility of imprisonment loomed, also fell under the provisions of the right to assistance of counsel.

Sadly, the fact that the Supreme Court had spoken did not solve the problems. Before 1964 there was no established method for the payment of appointed counsel for services or for the appointment of this counsel. As a result, some courts appointed very young, inexperienced or disinterested attorneys in the expectation they would plead their clients guilty. Today, however, there are many systems throughout the nation -- such as the public defender system or voluntary efforts -- that are shouldering the burden.

With the development of this right, attorneys have become more aware of their ethical obligations to provide services to poor defendants at little or no charge. The acceptance of the notion of equal rights for all, regardless of income status, is as much a basis of American law as this particular Sixth Amendment right.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

If people had right to health care, food, and housing, why would they work? Oh, that's right, that's why people that receive those things aren't working.

 

[fisharmor]

You're on track, but there are a couple of other posts (including the one you quoted) that were about the right to counsel.

I happen to agree 100% with him.
Where does it end? Do I get a free military-style rifle from the federal government, because there's a right to bear arms?
Do I get federally funded web hosting space, or a radio station, because of my right to free speech?

The reason (I suspect) why so many are becoming supporters of the constitution is because we can read and understand it.
If state laws were similar, where you didn't need a JD to understand what the hell is going on in a courtroom, would counsel be all that necessary?
I think erowe1's assessment is dead on - stop defending the original tyranny by heaping on more tyranny.

And I think it would be nice if we stopped pretending like public defenders are even worth a damn to begin with. They exist for one reason only: to plea-bargain you into a jail cell. They're drinking buddies with everyone else in the court room, and they're not sticking their necks out for anyone.
It's all nothing more than an illusion of justice.

 

[aGameOfThrones]

A few old comments from a member at the dailypaul:

That "right" existed in common law for a long time, prior tothe U.S. Constitution. The 6th amendment does not, as you assert, "grant" that right. It recognizes and "secures" it from encroachment. That is very different from the "granting" of a right. The right to trial by jury and the right to obtain the assistance of council are not concepts that were invented by the Constitution and they certainly did not originate with the Consitution nor were those "rights" something that were owned by the state which were capable of even being granted.-Submitted by austrianschool on Thu, 03/26/2009 - 14:22.

You are mistaken. That "right" existed long before the U.S. Constitution was drafted, much less ratified. It is *not* a granted right. It is a right. It is certainly recognized, and supposed to be secured, by the Constitution, but it is not "granted". An individual had that right at common law, prior to any Constitution appearing upon the scene in order to presume to undertake any manner of "granting" of any rights. Your assertion of using state coercive force, in order to compel the participation of an individual on a jury, is not even a part of the 6th amendment. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any specific authority, obtained by the Constitution, in order to compel jury service. That doesn't mean that such compulsion isn't done on a daily basis, based upon some alleged patriotic claim of "civic duty" and a claim by the State, to force such service, is some kind of "necessary" or "inherent" right. To confuse, in any way, compelled jury service with the "right" to trial by jury, is pretty astonishing. Your time would be well spent studying the history of trial by jury, starting in ancient Athens.

At the time that the Constitution was drafted, that right already existed at common law. Whether you consider it to be "natural" or not, though perhaps an interesting discussion, is not even relevant. One cannot "grant" something which one does not have. Even the earlier decisions of the SCOTUS recognized this. In Marbury v Madison, just to note one instance, the court acknowledged that individuals are the original owners of *all* rights. In the Constitution, some rights were granted to the federal government, some were denied to the states. The inclusion of the so-called "Bill of Rights" has, unfortunately, operated over the years to nurture the misguided (not to mention extremely dangerous) notion that, somehow, the Constitution is a "grantor" of rights to individuals, who already owned those rights in the first place. Recognition and securing of a right, against encroachment, is *not* the "granting" of a right.- Submitted by austrianschool on Thu, 03/26/2009 - 15:13.

None. My "rights" are such as existed long antecedent to the organization of the state. Any assertion, that the Bill of Rights actually "grants" rights to an individual, has to be based upon the assumption that those "rights", thus granted, were the property of the state in the first place, in order for any such "grant" to take place. To accept any part of such a theory is to accept the notion that the state is the originator, and therefore owner, of those rights claimed to be "granted".- Submitted by austrianschool on Thu, 03/26/2009 - 13:45.

http://www.dailypaul.com/87667/what...-grant-you-as-an-individual-can-you-name-them

What do you think?

 

[Tom in NYC]

We're starting to veer here. There are two issues. The right to counsel - very much in the constitution. And tax-payer funded counsel - not in the constitution, but in a SC interpretation. Sort of like Miranda rights.

I happen to think the interpretation is correct. If the government wants to prosecute someone, it shouldn't get an easier go at it just because the person has fewer funds.

Right. The various decisions (which i agree with as well) involve the person's right to counsel only when he will be deprived of life/liberty/property. In other words, you have the right to know what the hell is going on when the government is going to take something from you. That's why it's a "right" in the Constitution, although really all it's doing is saying that the government can't bring you before a court when you aren't equipped with the expertise to defend your life/liberty/property from deprivation. From that perspective, it's not actually granting a "right" but making the right to life liberty and property better defended.

 

[Liberty74]

Who is denied "access" to healthcare? You have the right to purchase whatever healthcare you want, don't you? Some might have to pay more than others.

I didn't realize where it says in the 6th Amendment or any of them are "god given." I have the Constitution on my iMac and the VI Amendment doesn't use such words. Also, how is a right to own a gun "god given." The Bill of Rights wasn't written from God either. If so, that is news to me.

 

[The Free Hornet]

I disagree. See the distinctions above. The 6th amendment also gives you the ability to compel others to provide testimony. That would also appear to be "wrong", unless you understand that it is there to ensure that the government does not infringe upon your right to defend yourself. I agree with the interpretation of the SC in this matter. The government does not have the obligation to provide you with the best counsel, but they should make sure you are not deprived of such just because you cannot afford it. After all, they are making a case against you - you need to be able understand the law in order to defend yourself.

There is no such thing in health care - unless we had a government that prevented you from getting health care.

Which we do (mandatory licensing, patented genes/devices/everything, no freedom for non-FDA medicines and treatments, doctors are loyal to their state licensing boards and state approved insurance plans instead of the patients). As such, it is no surprise that central planning leads to not entirely illlogical* demands for a single-payer system.

* If the premise is the government controls all, it is not illogical to demand they pay as well (or to refuse voluntary payments to an involuntary system of faux private entities).

 

[spudea]

the constitution protects rights, it doesn't grant rights. The founders believed we have an god given right to fair JUSTICE, therefore, the goverment is established to protect this right, the result is state appointed attorneys. Theres no god given right to live forever. This right is not given, it must be strived for, and if you are christian you have to accept JC to live forever.

Rights not protected by the US constitution are left to the states and to the people. So if you think everyone should have free healthcare, you can sponsor a charity to give free healthcare. If you gather your communites together around protecting the right to healthcare, you can have your state legislature create a free healthcare program, as Massachusetts has done. If you think we need protection of this right on a national level, then you campaign across the 50 States and pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to PROTECT the right to healthcare.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Legal counsel involves the services of another human being.

As does the judge, jury, prosecutor, and jailer. The constitution simply holds these services (judge, jury, prosecutor, jailer) cannot be applied without minimal defense council. The burden rests entirely on those seeking to - rightly or wrongly - deprive an individual of their liberty. This is not a situation where the citizen gets something for free, rather, it is the government being told their "ain't no free lunch".

And I think it would be nice if we stopped pretending like public defenders are even worth a damn to begin with. They exist for one reason only: to plea-bargain you into a jail cell. They're drinking buddies with everyone else in the court room, and they're not sticking their necks out for anyone.
It's all nothing more than an illusion of justice.

I don't disagree but this tears a hole in the premise of the original post. More so, it indicates how far from the constitution we have strayed. The government is not proving adequate council and is hypervigilant in prosecuting everyone the police finger. Otherwise, the DAs will not be supported by the police which is a big thing in local politics for some reason.

 

[Davy Crockett]

Start at the 11:30 mark for the definitions of "right" and "privilege".

 

[damiengwa]

the attorney they give you will only advocate as permitted by the system. That almost always means a terrible job, typically ending in plea bargain.

 

[Watch]

I'm not sure about all your labels.

But who gives the government that authority?

I think the Social Contract Theory goes something along the lines that the authority is appropriated, with the justification, being Utilitarian in this sense, to keep the peace. Laws are to maintain the peace as opposed to violent skirmishes. I could be wrong though, I am not a scholar in no means on social contract, but I do know it is utilitarian in principal.

 

[erowe1]

As does the judge, jury, prosecutor, and jailer.

And, like healthcare, it is wrong to provide these things at taxpayers' expense.

 

[Davy Crockett]

And, like healthcare, it is wrong to provide these things at taxpayers' expense.

You obviously have no understanding of the history of criminal courts in Western civilization and its abuses over the years. Take a trip to your local courtroom and watch how misdemeanor cases are handled when the poor cannot afford an attorney and ask yourself if justice is being served.

From the Missouri Bar Association:

The Right of Assistance of Counsel


Among the landmark cases establishing the applicability of constitutional laws, none have been more important than the many cases dealing with the right to assistance of counsel. This important clause, provided in the Sixth Amendment, assures that no one will find himself alone in a court of law against overwhelming odds.

The guarantees of this provision stem from the basic tenets of our legal and judicial system. The American system is an adversary system. This means that through the battling of two opposing sides in open court, the whole story will be uncovered, the truth will be known and justice will be served. The right of all persons faced with the prospect of losing their liberty to the assistance of counsel is obvious. Such has, however, not always been the case. The development of this right, especially for those unable to afford an attorney, has only recently taken place.

Historically, the right to counsel has meant the right to retained counsel; that is, if the defendant could afford a lawyer, he had the right to use one. The poor defendant was denied this right. In early America, some states showed a greater concern for the impoverished defendant than did the federal government. These states provided for the appointment of counsel in cases punishable by death, with some states going so far as to provide counsel on all felony charges.

This was not sufficient protection, however, because many states were never required to do this. Even when they provided for the appointment of attorneys in the cases, judges would often fail to inform defendants of this right or would all too readily accept a waiver of the right.

Significant changes began to occur in the 1940s, when the U. S. Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution required an offer of free counsel to the poor in all felony cases in federal courts. If a defendant waived this right, the waiver had to be intelligent.

Further improvements came in the 1960s. A landmark case, Gideon v. Wainwright, led to a Supreme Court ruling that the states could no longer use a different standard than the federal government in the appointment of counsel to represent poor defendants. It decreed that free counsel must be appointed to represent all poor persons who were accused of a felony. By this ruling, the court established the unfairness of allowing an unrepresented defendant to face the combined forces of the state prosecutor's office and police investigators without any assistance.

This was not the end of the development of this important constitutional right. In 1972, the Supreme Court declared that whenever an accused is in danger of losing his liberty, he must be given an appointed attorney. This meant that even misdemeanor cases, where the possibility of imprisonment loomed, also fell under the provisions of the right to assistance of counsel.

Sadly, the fact that the Supreme Court had spoken did not solve the problems. Before 1964 there was no established method for the payment of appointed counsel for services or for the appointment of this counsel. As a result, some courts appointed very young, inexperienced or disinterested attorneys in the expectation they would plead their clients guilty. Today, however, there are many systems throughout the nation -- such as the public defender system or voluntary efforts -- that are shouldering the burden.

With the development of this right, attorneys have become more aware of their ethical obligations to provide services to poor defendants at little or no charge. The acceptance of the notion of equal rights for all, regardless of income status, is as much a basis of American law as this particular Sixth Amendment right.