Is 'presumption of innocence' dead in America?

My world has been rocked! I have always thought the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty is somewhere set in stone in either the U.S. Constitution, one of its amendments or codified in legislation. To my horror I have discovered it is a mere Supreme Court decision from 1895 that backhandedly carves out a defendant's presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Coffin v. U.S. says:

"A charge that there cannot be a conviction unless the proof shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt does not so entirely embody the statement of presumption of innocence as to justify the court in refusing, when requested, to instruct the jury concerning such presumption, which is a conclusion drawn by the law in favor of the citizen by virtue whereof, when brought to trial upon a criminal charge, he must be acquitted unless he is proven to be guilty."

The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution provide details about legal search and arrest, an individual's rights in a criminal case and a right to a fair trial. The Fifth Amendment particularly states one cannot "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …" The Supreme Court's decision in the Coffin case clarifies presumption of innocence as part of that due process. Even though it is only among federal case law, it is nevertheless still there and protecting the citizens of this great nation … or is it?

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND's Email News Alerts!

The recent impeachment of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was a mockery of our constitutional system of government and the required due process. The number of shameful shortcuts the Texas House took to bring articles of impeachment to the State Senate was beyond embarrassing! All hearsay and zero evidence. Tucker Carlson's interview with Paxton was an eye-opener to the level of corruption even in Texas. There is significant movement from the Texas GOP to censure House Speaker Dade Phelan, especially since the Senate acquitted Paxton on all 16 convoluted and crazy counts.

It is not just Ken Paxton's recent drama played out on the public stage that touches presumption of innocence. There is also the rash of public attacks on internet personalities who dare to speak out against sacred cows, the most recent of which is libertarian-leaning Russell Brand, who purportedly has more than 6 million subscribers on YouTube. He has been accused of sexual assault by a number of women who have only just now come forth, alleging the crimes all took place more than a decade ago. Why now?

Brand admits freely he has led a sordid past involving a very promiscuous history but adamantly denies ever acting without consent. YouTube promptly demonetized him, arguing that "If a creator's off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community." Do you see the problem with that statement? Brand has not been convicted of anything yet. Of course, his case is a special one because he is a citizen of the United Kingdom, not the U.S. But British Common Law is purportedly where we got the idea of presumption of innocence in the first place.

Now, even the U.K. government is getting in on the corruption of due process. Apparently, it is not enough that Brand has been demonetized on YouTube. Dame Caroline Dinenage, chair of Parliament's Culture, Media and Sport Committee, has sent a letter to Rumble and X demanding they deplatform Brand stating, "We are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content." Rumble gave an unequivocal "NO." It appears Elon Musk, owner of X, formerly Twitter, is supportive of Brand as well. I think demonetization, and definitely deplatforming, would meet the qualifications of depriving one of property without due process of law as referenced in the Fifth Amendment.

No place else is a better example of how being innocent until proven guilty has gone totally by the wayside than the never-ending babble about using the 14th Amendment to keep Donald Trump off the 2024 presidential ballot. Section 3 of the14th Amendment, according to my pocket Constitution, bars someone from ever holding office again who has previously taken an oath of office to defend the Constitution and has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion." Sen. Chuck Schumer has repeatedly pressed that this should keep President Trump from being on the ballot. The problem, of course, is that Trump has not been convicted of any such crimes. Schumer insists that doesn't matter. I guess he feels his opinion alone should be the deciding factor. What astonishes me as much as the very fact anyone would even argue such a thing is that every legal commentator I've read regarding the argument completely skips over the presumption of innocence as if it were not an integral part of due process and our rule of law.

All these examples show that our government and/or many of the technocrats in charge of the new public square are not just willing to but are actively dismissing unalienable rights afforded to us by God. It is not their right to take such things away from anyone, for they were not the ones who afforded those rights in the first place. The question is, my fellow Americans, what remedies do we have to bring about a change? How do we put a stop to this (as well as numerous other) egregious dismissal(s) of our constitutional rights? How much longer will this go on before the perpetrators of criminal activity (and criminal it very much is) are stopped? It appears our system may lack a foolproof legal avenue to effectively punish constitutional criminals.

I am glad to see that at least Rumble and X are holding their ground, for now, on the Russell Brand matter. But apart from them, it appears the ruling elites, whether government or technocrat, believe themselves to be untouchable. For they must know their pressures and precedents will ultimately steal everyone's rights if this is allowed to continue to its ultimate end. To these elitist dreamers, I would warn that there is no honor among thieves, as well as the fact that one's "untouchableness" can vanish quickly as evidenced by the French Revolution; things did not go well for those elites!

Prayer and fasting is very much in order here, especially in light of the number of articles I have read in the last week alone openly arguing for or warning about an impending uprising of the people. Pray, Church! Like you've never prayed before! Let's hope we never get to the place, here in the U.S., where the guillotines are being erected.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!