It’s only ambiguous if you ignore the clear intent of what was written. Just like how the right to a “speedy” trial somehow allows them to be delayed for over a year. Sorry the language isn’t ambiguous, the language is being ignored.
Generally, when trials take a very long time to happen, it's because the defendant has decided it is in their interest to waive the right to a speedy trial.
(Yes, the timeframe is longer than it was in the 18th century, but trials have also gotten more complex: mostly in ways that benefit defendants).
EDIT: Nevermind, I see that you addressed this down thread.
Shorter would compromise the defense, who has less warning of the need to prepare for trial (that's why in the federal system, the defense, in addition to having a waivable statutory right for trial to start within 70 days of charging, also has a waivable statutory right for it to not start less than 30 days from charging.)
And it is speedy compared to the problems which motivated the guarantee.
Speedy civil trials are not a constitutional right. (Though, when it comes to forfeiture, the long timelines are one of many problematic aspects).
So it’s doubly troubling as they are also ignoring the presumption of innocence and other such protections.
These forfeiture trials are not criminal trials. There are plenty of ways you can be civilly liable without breach of contract.
I do think the standard should be higher than a typical civil case (beyond preponderance of the evidence).
But this artifact of law has a reason to exist: if there's stuff that's most likely involved in a crime with no identifiable owner, it makes sense for it to be seized. Especially the original case of distant and difficult to identify ship owners. (Once an owner can be identified, I do think there should be greater protections-- deriving from the fourth, not the sixth, amendment.
I am saying the court system is misclassifying criminal cases as civil ones. You want to increase the standard of evidence which IMO means roughly the same thing. But, I can see why you might disagree.
An interesting instance of this happened recently, when an appellant in a civil case to our Supreme Court (who also happened to be a lawyer) deliberately leaked the court's draft opinion to the press while it was under embargo. The court wasn't sure what to do, as contempt findings carry an automatic right of appeal and yet there's no-one to appeal to from the supreme court.
(As we have more than one benchful of Supreme Court justices, they decided to assemble one panel for the 'first instance' hearing, which was itself distinct from that who had heard the original case, and a completely fresh panel for the appeal[0]. He was fined £5000 and the appeal was dismissed on all grounds.)
Allegations of fraud in a civil case have also historically been treated differently, because losing could have a similar effect on a litigant's reputation (and ability to carry out a business) as a criminal conviction. It's sometimes possible to get a civil jury trial under these circumstances, for example, which have been effectively abolished in this jurisdiction.
Umm, Gitmo was messed up. But, to be clear, the United States does not guarantee constitutional rights to non-citizens who have not touched US soil, so this is a bit of a canard.
> J6 detainees?
Despite rumors of hundreds of January 6th detainees languishing in jails-- the actual number is approximately 35. Most of these have waived speedy trial. Most of these have not been detained for a very long time.
A few are still undergoing legal discovery. It's a problematic set of circumstances: further, closely related arrests happen; without providing additional information on the new arrests to existing arrestees' counsel, convictions could later be set aside. In turn, this restarts some clocks. On the other hand, judges are getting frustrated and warning the prosecution that these delays are becoming excessive.
I can't find this detail in my copy of the constitution. 6A in particular specifies "the accused". It's true that most Gitmo prisoners were never actually accused of anything (because they had never done anything, in particular anything related to actions undertaken by Saudi nationals under the direction of Saudi intelligence personnel), and were eventually released without apology. However, any prisoner who ever actually went to trial would certainly be classified as "accused".
The overwhelming majority of defendants not waiving speedy trials get a trial within a year.
Of the remaining, there's a big share that are various kinds of edge cases where it makes sense that a trial has taken a little longer than normal.
And then there's the remaining abuses and problems, which are relatively small in number but should be addressed.
3-4 months to get a criminal case together, with discovery requirements, etc, seems reasonable.
> No anyone ever hitting 1 year is clear evidence of total failure of the system to even pretend to care about this issue.
I don't agree. Terrible stuff happens occasionally-- it is not evidence that every element of the system is broken everywhere.
IMO the big issue is bail and pre-trial detention. Yes, criminal cases being in limbo is bad (and the constitutional right of speedy trial is important)-- but a lot of the reason why they take longer now than in the 18th century is because of additional protections for defendants.
The thinking of course is everyone could potentially join a militia, therefore everyone is defacto covered under the second amendment.
Because one first part explains the rationale, the second part describes the right.
I personally think the current state of affairs does a pretty good job balancing the two parts of the amendment. States are allowed to put a lot of restrictions on how you can buy guns, and where you can carry/use them, but ultimately people are allowed to have them. You aren’t allowed a nuke, you are allowed a shotgun. Exactly what level of personal firepower should be allowed for a “well regulated militia” could be a constant source for debate, but I think the balance is kept pretty well.
I know this is apostasy, but because the founders weren't omniscient beings that drafted perfect documents. Rather they were politicians basically just winging it while trying to come to some consensus. Critically, they lacked an understanding of the limitation of logical systems that would only be discovered in the 20th century - the repercussions of which are with us to this day.
> Exactly what level of personal firepower should be allowed for a “well regulated militia” could be a constant source for debate, but I think the balance is kept pretty well.
From the commoner's perspective, most explosives are basically illegal even though they could be responsibly kept by anyone with a little land. So no, I don't think any balance has been achieved. For starters, anything that a domestic-facing police department is allowed to have should be fair game for the rest of the People as well.
Hand waving away the wording about military utility, and only focusing on the individual right.
We can, and need to have a debate about both, and not just the latter. That is my point.
"(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
Even in the few active state militia they would be considered eligible, not members.
SCOTUS has had contradictory decisions in the past on whether private gun rights hinge on military applications of the specific firearms, but indeed this is the talking point - state militias.
Collectively, the people who parrot "Shall Not Be Infringed" are really trying to avoid the militia debate entirely.