No other part of the Constitution has suffered such an egregious misrepresentation as the first ten amendments, also known as The Bill of Rights. Self-serving politicians, social activists in education, and those in control of a two-tiered criminal justice system, have used their positions to force-feed the population with their versions of what they need the people to accept so they can pursue an agenda leading to absolute control. Just as despotism begins with misinformation, freedom begins, and is maintained, with facts. The following pages will break down the amendments and open them up as the founders intended.

Article VII
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
 

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 

Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 

Third Amendment
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
 

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 

Fifth Amendment
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.
 

Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
 

Seventh Amendment
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
 

Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 

There is a set of rules for reading and deciphering the Constitution as a whole. As we look at the Bill of Rights, we will use those rules or standards which they do not teach in the halls of academia.

Rule #1: When a word is capitalized it has a special meaning in the text. The reason for its use must be defined in context with the message of the text and must be defined by the writer's use of it in context with his education, experiences, and message goals. None of the Constitution can be deciphered with modern definitions or political and social philosophies. Although the Constitution is completely relevant for our modern times, it must be opened, like a lock, with the key designed for it.
Rule#2: Wherever the word ‘shall’ appears in the text, everything that comes after is protected from legislative action by Congress. No other branch of the elected or appointed has the authority to make laws, rules, or mandates that compromises the integrity of any of the text after the word ‘shall.’ When dealing with any portion of the Constitution, Congress only has the authority to enforce the Constitution by legislative means, but never to change it. It must be changed by amendment which requires a two-thirds vote in both The House and The Senate.


Amendment One

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or the prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
  This amendment is the most egregiously misinterpreted of all of the amendments. For years judges and legislators, law schools, and even Supreme Court Justices have misinterpreted this amendment. Anti-religion activists have claimed that there is an “Establishment clause” that separates church and state, and it forbids religion being exercised in or promoted by schools or on government land or in buildings such a schools and colleges. The interpretation is wrong and purely a product of religious bias by elected officials and anti-religious activist. It was a fabrication created by Madeline Murray O'Hare in 1962 in her argument to a constitutionally ignorant and liberal majority Supreme Court whose ruling in her favor removed prayer and Bible study from public schools. This opinion by the Supreme Court was the beginning of an unconstitutional pattern of future Supreme Courts that saw many instances where Supreme Court opinion was accepted as law even though the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to create laws. Supreme Court opinion is nothing more than a precedent for future argument in lower court proceedings but is not a set in stone law or rule that cannot be contested or put aside by lower court judges or future Supreme Court Justices.

 Those who believe the First Amendment restricts religious practices by the people are ignorant of the facts and they ignore the opening five words of the text. “Congress shall make no law…” establishes that the amendment, the full amendment, refers to the actions of Congress exclusively. Not one of the amendments was written to be a restriction on the people but the actions of Congress.

   The First Amendment protects the people's right to freedom of religion from the legislative actions of Congress. The people are absolutely free to practice or exercise their religious beliefs anywhere and anytime they choose without suppression or restriction by government at any level. This means students, staff, and administrators can read their Bible, share their faith, and pray out loud on any school property without having to gain permission by any level of government. They can display pictures, emblems, and symbols of their religion without restriction by government representatives. Again, the amendment is a restriction on the legislative actions of Congress, not on the people.
  The word “respecting” in this text means that Congress cannot pass any law that gives preference to one religion over another such as creating a law that exempts one religion from taxation while requiring another to pay taxes.  It also forbids Congress from passing a law that creates a state supported religion and making attendance mandatory like the Church of England did at the time.

   The rest of the directive forbids Congress from making any law that restricts the people from exercising their religion in whatever manner they choose. Any government representative that creates a rule or ordinance that restricts the exercising of a person's religion is violating the First Amendment.      Remember, the amendment is a restriction on the legislative process by Congress and other legislative bodies, not on the people. 

“or abridging the freedom of speech,”

  This right is another that has been egregiously misinterpreted and misrepresented in our culture. When these words were included in the amendment, it was intended to apply to the freedom to voice displeasure with the actions of the Elected without the fear of persecution or reprisal. It was never intended to protect all manners of speech. The types of speech that the amendment was never intended to protect was speech that defamed, libeled, or created a false perception of another person's character or honor. This is why we have laws that punish libelous or defamatory speech. At the time of the Constitution's creation, citizens of Great Britain were not allowed to speak against the King or the Church. To do so resulted in prison and at times execution. The founders of the new nation wanted the citizens to be free to openly voice their opinions and dissatisfaction with the Elected without fear of retaliation by them.
  Speech that is also not protected by the amendment is that which creates fear, anxiety, or mental anguish to another person such as threats of bodily injury or death. Speech that threatens the safety and security of an individual or group, defined as “terroristic threats”, speech that by its very nature is designed to illicit a violent response by another individual or a group which has been defined by The U.S. Supreme Court as “fighting words” (Chaplinsky v New Hampshire), and any speech which creates an incitement of a riot which creates a clear and present danger to the public is also not protected by the First Amendment (Feiner v. People of State of New York). Even speech concerning a person's displeasure of the Elected is not protected speech if it threatens the health, safety, or life of a person or group.
  Returning to the protection of free speech when it concerns the Elected, the Supreme Court ruled in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, " that the "First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. Even if the words are considered to be fighting words, the First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination." This statement also protects not only verbal speech but symbolic speech such as emblems, pictures, and quotes that express a personal opinion, such as flags, apparel, posters, videos, music, art, etc. 
  So remember, if the speech is based on personal opinion or verifiable fact, it is protected by the First Amendment, but if it is speech designed to libel or mischaracterize and individual or group that is harmful to them without verifiable evidence, or that creates an atmosphere of anxiety and fear, or designed to illicit a violent reaction from another person or group, it is not protected speech.

“or of the press”

  The protection of freedom of speech extends to the press, but also has the same limits as the freedom of speech for the public. Once again, the roll of the press was to make the actions of the Elected transparent to the people and expose any corruption or wrongdoing within their ranks. In England the press was controlled by the Crown and could not report anything not approved by the Crown first. The founders believed the only way to ensure the accountability of the Elected was to have an information source that was free to print the truth about the elected with full access and in complete neutrality.
  Sadly, in the last twenty years the press has become more and more partisan and politically corrupt. As a result, their reporting has stepped outside the First Amendment protection because biased, politically and socially motivated speech is not protected because it consists of opinion and not facts. Even though personal opinion is protected on its face, if it is presented or promoted as fact it is not protected as it is considered deception. The First Amendment only applies to the press when it produces factual information that can be verified by real evidence and not founded on hearsay, accusations, opinion, or assumptions. Just as with the individual right of the people has limitations, so does the protection of the press.  As stated before, if it is speech designed to libel or mischaracterize and individual or group that is harmful to them without verifiable evidence, or that creates an atmosphere of anxiety and fear, or designed to illicit a violent reaction from another person or group, it is not protected speech.
  The state and federal courts, as well as the Supreme Court, have become very negligent in their responsibility to hold the press accountable and demanding they stay within the boundaries of their constitutional limits. The People must first exercise their authority to demand an accurate and neutral press that is held accountable for their purposeful misinformation and lack of journalistic integrity. Change starts with the People and then manifests in the Elected.

"or the right of the people to peacefully assemble,"

  In England the people were not allowed to assemble in public in large groups because the Crown was always fearful of revolution. It was believed by the Crown that when the people gathered in large groups, they were contemplating rebellion, so the act was forbidden. The founders of the new nation realized there could be no freedom of speech without the freedom to peacefully assemble. So, they included this protection after the protection of free speech to close all possibility of interference by the Elected.
  As with most of the Constitution, this protection has been misinterpreted and abused by those who seek to bring extremism and anarchy into our society and our system of government. Gatherings which incite violence, destruction of property, theft, assaults on citizens and law enforcement, and disrupts the free flow of commerce, is not the peaceful assembly protected by this amendment. Such actions are riots, not peaceful assembly and are criminal acts that can be dealt with by local and state law enforcement and courts as criminal acts without violating any constitutional protections. The constitutional rights of the majority to live in peace and security overrides any criminal actions by extremism.

“and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

  Many people believe that this protection is just a continuation of the peaceful assembly clause, but it is a separate protection. While it is possible to give a redress of grievances in a peaceful assembly, the right to petition is another way to make our displeasure with the Elected known in a more centralized way. The word ‘petition’ in this portion of the text is defined as, "1. A solemn supplication or request, especially to a superior authority; an entreaty. 2. A formal written document requesting a right or benefit from a person or group in authority. 3. A formal written application seeking a court's intervention and action on a matter.
  This protection allows a great number of citizens to present a signed and notarized document to the Elected with demands for explanations for their actions as well as demands for the ceasing of those actions, as well as demands for their immediate resignation for criminal or unconstitutional acts. Petitions, once submitted to the elected must be filed in the National Archive as a permanent record of communication between the People and the Elected. Remember, the People is the Government and the Elected is the government (small ‘g’) and they must answer to the Government of the People, and one way they do that is through a petition. A 'redress of grievances' means a petition demanding the correction of all actions that result in an unconstitutional law, rule, or mandate, as well as any action that poses a threat to the safety and security of the nation, whether it is civil, economic, military, or commercial.

Amendment Two

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment is possibly the most controversial amendment in the Constitution and the most misinterpreted by politicians, judges, state legislatures, and even the Supreme Court. The amendment itself is very simply written and very simply understandable to anyone with a modicum of common sense and historical understanding. Those who wish to obtain power always execute plans to disarm the citizens first, and they begin by promoting misinformation and falsehood. No amendment has attracted more falsehood and misinformation than the Second. That's because those in power fully understand the reasons the founders had for including it in the Constitution; to allow the people an avenue to protect themselves from a rogue Elected. The founders understood that for the people to remain free they had to be able to use armed force to disable a tyrannical Elected and replace it with one that operated within the will of the people. To do so, the people had to be armed at all times and without the approval of the Elected. This was the sole purpose of the Second Amendment.

“A well regulated Militia,”

This beginning statement has suffered the greatest amount of misinterpretation in the Constitution. Political, educational, and social talking heads have consistently and purposely generated a campaign of misinformation and falsehood about this opening line, equating it with a trained and controlled military under the supervision of the Elected. This has been one of the greatest con jobs perpetrated against the American people in their history.
The word ‘regulated’ in the context of the Constitution as a whole simply means “armed, trained, and supervised.”
‘Militia’ is another word that has been misinterpreted purposely by those who support bigger government. In the Constitution there are three mentions of Militia, and each one means something different due to the context of its use. The first time Militia is seen in the Constitution is in Article 1, Section 8; Powers of Congress. “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;” The second time the word Militia is seen is in Article 2, Section 2, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”  This second reference to Militia establishes that there are two separate Militias spoken of in the Constitution. The first can be activated by Congress and the President to enforce federal law and stop insurrections and invasions. These first two are referring to the National Guard, or ‘the Militia of the several states’ because the National guard is under the authority of the state's Governor and can only be called into federal service by Congress and the President, and it is also equipped by the federal military. 
Many have been led to believe that the Militia spoken of in the amendment is the same as that mentioned in Articles One and Two, but the Militia mentioned in the amendment has nothing to do with the military. The Militia spoken of in the Second Amendment is the armed citizens of each state being brought together to defend their state from invasion by a foreign entity and to intervene in public unrest like riots and looting (insurrection). It is the citizen Militia that is protected in the Second Amendment against disarmament.
During the Revolutionary War the Continental Congress and General Washington, commander of the Continental Army, knew that the army was out gunned and outmanned by the British, so they sent out a call for citizen volunteers to fill the gaps in their ranks. If it had not been for the Militia, known as Minutemen, we may not have ever become a free and independent nation.
The founders realized how integral the citizen was in cementing our sovereignty so they made sure through the Second Amendment that they would never be disarmed by a tyrannical Elected. The Second Amendment is first and foremost an insurance policy for the people to insure they were always able to defend themselves against tyranny. The reason that self-defense was not specifically added to the amendment was because self-defense was an unquestionable right within itself, and it was implied in the rest of the amendment.

“being necessary to the security of a Free State,”

The founders were far thinking people. They understood as the country expanded and more states were added, the importance of the citizens of those states to be free and independent from the federal elected with powers to govern their individual states, they worded it to focus on that right. The wording ‘Free State’ is capitalized which means it is speaking of the people of those states and not the Elected. The state elected had the same responsibilities and boundaries on their powers as the federal elected, and those powers and limitations were enforced by an armed population. The word 'security' doesn't mean only safety from attack or invasion from external sources, but from political overreach by its own governor, legislature, and judicial branches. An armed conflict with the elected was intended as a last resort to securing a free and secure nation and a free and secure state, but it was an option the founders understood was very necessary, so they gave the people the foundation needed to protect and secure their liberties at all levels of tyranny.

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms,”

This statement bears witness that the Militia is the people. The transfer of the word ‘people’ from Militia was not a mistake. It was an intentional language to define the Militia as the people, not the Elected, not law enforcement, or the military, but the people of the state. It also establishes that the ‘right of the people’ already existed before the amendment was written and ratified. This enforces the fact that our rights are divinely given by God and only protected by the document, not given by the document. ‘To keep and bear arms’ is most clear. The citizen has the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (firearms) at all times without the approval or the permission of the Elected.

“shall not be infringed.”

The last four words of the amendment seem to be incomprehensible to the elected and their appointed agents. In the law, the word ‘shall’ indicates what comes after cannot be suspended, changed, or repealed by legislative action. “Congress shall make no law” that infringes on any right, especially this one because the language is clear and adamant, "shall not be infringed."

Amendment Three

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law”

The amendment begins with a prime directive; “No soldier shall..” which if you recall what was previously said about the use of the word ‘shall’, directs that what comes after cannot be changed by legislative action alone but must be done by the amendment process. The next part names what a soldier (the military) cannot do, “in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner,” At no time can the military, or the Militia, enter a private home on official business during peace time without the owner's (or renter's) consent. If it should be attempted, the resident has the right to use whatever measures necessary to expel them from his or her property.

“nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

Even during war time, the military cannot force the resident to allow them to reside in the home for official business unless the reason has been established by the law. However, Congress cannot create a law solely for the purpose of allowing the military to do so. “In a time of war” only pertains to a conflict on American soil, not on foreign grounds and does not include acts of insurrection or riots.

Amendment Four

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This amendment is one of the most important of them all because it places major restrictions on law enforcement and the judicial when dealing with the principle of probable cause.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”

The people have an inalienable right to be secure in their persons, meaning they have a right to not be subjected to a physical search of their person unless they have been arrested and charged with a crime. The ‘Terry Stop’ has been used by many law enforcement officers to illegally search occupants of a vehicle outside the boundaries of the amendment. The Terry search has been supported by the Supreme Court as not violating the Fourth Amendment if conducted under certain restrictions. The officer must have reasonable suspicion based on the actions of the person that the person may be a threat to officer safety by carrying a weapon, and the search is restricted to a pat down of the outer clothing and does not include entering the pockets of the garments. The pockets can only be entered after the person is placed under arrest and not during a simple detainment. If a weapon such as a gun or knife is found, the officer can secure it during the detainment, but no other items can be removed from the person's garments, and upon release from the stop, the articles secured must be returned unless the person cannot legally possess them by state law or court order.
A person's home is considered sacred territory in the law. No governing body or enforcement agency can enter the residence of a citizen without a warrant issued by a magistrate except in what is called "exigent circumstances." The term is defined as "circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."  This also includes such things as a medical emergency, rescue from harm or death from something such as a fire or other destructive force. Another area of the person's life that is protected their personal possessions and documents (papers and effects), which now includes any electronic files that may be saved on their computer, smart phone, or in the cloud.

“against unreasonable searches and seizures,”

The words ‘reasonable’ and ‘unreasonable’ are used many times in the law and the Constitution. It simply means, "just, rational, appropriate, ordinary or usual in the circumstances. It may refer to care, cause, compensation, doubt (in a criminal trial), and a host of other actions or activities.
In simple terms, reasonable means thoughts, actions, and rationalization that a reasonable person would possess. The problem arises when the definition of a reasonable person is attempted by a jury. Thankfully the law is less ambiguous.

“shall not be violated,”

Here we see again the word ‘shall’ and we now know that what comes after; “not be violated” is protected from legislative action in any form.

“and no Warrants shall issue,”

There has been an uptick in the issuance of warrants in the last twenty years and very little of it involves this statement or the standards expressed in the following lines. More and more justices and magistrates are issuing warrants to local, state, and federal agencies when their request is less than the requirements of this amendment. “No Warrants shall issue” simply means that if the application for a warrant doesn't meet the standards required by the amendment, then the application is to be denied.

“but upon probable cause”

Probable cause has statutory definitions of its own. The legal definition of probable cause is; probable cause exists when the “facts and circumstances” that police officers know about, based on “reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed.” Probable cause doesn't mean “probably because I feel there is a crime being committed.” There has to be a progressive investigative accumulation of evidence that would lead a reasonable person to the conclusion. based on the collected evidence, that a crime is being or has been committed.

“supported by oath or affirmation”

The officer or investigator leading the investigation must submit a signed and sworn statement to the judge or magistrate affirming his belief that an individual is or has committed a crime, and in that statement, or affidavit, there must be a list of the evidence accumulated within the statement, followed by an oath, or affirmation, that all the evidence was collected within statutory rules. The magistrate will then view the application and the list of evidence and either issue a warrant or deny the warrant based upon the magistrate's opinion of the veracity of the evidence. Should the magistrate conclude through interview of the investigator that any part of the evidence was collected outside statutory rules, he can deny the warrant and even bring charges against the investigator for perjury for filing a false affidavit. 

"and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

In this final directive the word ‘particularly’ is synonymous with the word ‘specifically.’ The warrant must contain the specific address of the location to be searched, or in some instances where there is no address, the GPS coordinates must be listed. The warrant must also specifically name the person to whom the warrant is issued for if it is an arrest warrant. Any person not named in the warrant cannot be arrested for simply being in the residence or the vehicle with the person. Also, if the warrant is one that authorizes arrest only, officers cannot search the property because the warrant specifically says arrest and not search. If the warrant specifically demands the search of property and the seizure of evidence, the officers can only search the property and seize the evidence named in the warrant. There is a legal precedent called ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ which refers to evidence taken outside the authority of the warrant. An example would be; Officers serve a search warrant for a property and the warrant is for illegal drugs. During their search they come across a cache of stolen guns and seize them and charge the suspect with Receiving or Possessing Stolen Property. When the case comes to court and it is revealed the evidence found when officers were searching under a warrant for unrelated evidence, the case would be dismissed because the evidence was seized outside the scope of the warrant.
To recap, a warrant can only be issued after the officer submits an application with all the evidence listed and including an oath or affirmation that said evidence was collected in a lawful manner. Once the warrant is issued, it must contain the specific address, or GPS coordinates, of the residence or place to be searched plainly listed on the warrant, and it must contain the specific person to be arrested if it's an arrest warrant and the specific charge of the arrest, and if a search warrant, must contain the specific thing to be seized. Officers cannot search areas outside the authority of the warrant or seize items not listed in the warrant.

Traffic Stops
Video: https://youtu.be/xIZz0vF2KPo
Reference: https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/how-long-is-too-long-for-a-traffic-stop/

The rules governing 4th Amendment protections for vehicles is less prohibitive than those governing homes and buildings.


Amendment Five

“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.”

Again we see the word shall used to indicate that all which come after it is protected from legislative actions or civil rules or mandates. It can only be suspended. changed, or repealed by constitutional amendment, which would require a two-thirds majority vote in favor of in both the House and the Senate.

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,”

The first three words of the amendment sets the standard for the entirety of the amendment. ‘No person’ means any citizen of the United States no matter their social, economic, ethnic, religious, or political position or belief. Although we seem to have a two-tiered justice system today, the founders never intended for such a thing to happen. It was the same system they were declaring their independence from. The full intent of this amendment is to establish a system of justice that sees every person the same. Again we see the word ‘shall’ which protects the remainder of the amendment from legislative action. No law can be enacted that creates a class system within the criminal justice system, or at least that was the intent of the founders. ‘To answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime’ simply means that any criminal action that results in a capital charge such as the murder of a law enforcement officer, and in some states the murder of a child under ten, etc. ‘Otherwise infamous crime’ relates to any crime of a felonious nature, or any felony grade crime. Every state now has an access port to that state's penal code and can be found on its State Legislature website. If you live in Texas it can be accessed at 
(https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov). 

“unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,”

The simple definition of a grand Jury is, “A group of citizens assembled by the government to hear evidence against an accused, and determine whether an indictment for a crime should be brought.” It is the Prosecutor in the county, state, or district that determines who sits on the Grand Jury and who is allowed to present evidence. 

Amendment Six

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.