What WOULD be a violation of the 6th Amendment? Give an example.
Trials that take years to complete...
Trials which are not public...
Trials wherein the accused is never given the charge or its nature...
Trials wherein the accusing witnesses are not presented [ie no cross-examination]...
and
Trials wherein the accused is not allowed defense council...
Those would all, likewise, be violations of the 6th amendment.
They are pretty much spelled out.
“...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...”
If a judge closes a courtroom to the public, there you go. If you're trial keeps drifting out ad nauseum for no good reason, or specifically to increase the chance of conviction by some sleight of hand, there you go.
...by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...”
Coercion of the defendant to waive their right to a jury trial, there you go. Distortion of jury size or rules in a manner clearly intended to maximize the chances of conviction, there you go.
“...to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation...”
Self explanatory. If the offense is not accurately and clearly described consistent with the requirements of jurisdiction statues, such that the accused cannot properly prepare a defense, there you go.
“...to be confronted with the witnesses against him...”
If the defendant is not afforded the opportunity to cross examine the state's witnesses against him/her, there you go.
“...to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor...”
If the prosecution says you shot Fred at 8:27 PM on June the 22nd, you have witnesses who say you were drunk and throwing up in their bathroom from 8:00 PM to 9:00 PM, and they are not allowed to testify, there you go.
“...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
Don't let you have a lawyer or appoint a narcoleptic heroin addict two months past the bar to defend you, there you go.
What people here simply refuse to acknowledge is the fact that there is a clear legal basis in statute, enacted by Congress per the Constitution, for the orders Lakin received to be lawful regardless of whether Obama legitimately holds the office of President. Therefore, that issue is not relevant to the charge in question, and he has no Constitutional right to compel witnesses on that subject. He has the right to compel any witnesses who can substantiate that (a) he did not receive the orders in question, (b) the orders were countermanded, (c) extraordinary circumstance prevented him from carrying out those orders, or (d) will testify to his good character and conduct. No judge has denied or will deny him the right to such witnesses.