These source texts address the enduring issue concerning states rights being in conflict with federal power by relating Flordia's unwillingness to provide this case's defendant with an attorney and the federal government's power to force Flordia to abide by the 6th Amendment. These issues clearly reflect how prescient our founding fathers were in generating a set of founding principles enabling posterity to grapple with new and evolving situation that could not have been foreseen in the context of the times when our founding documents were written. Luckily, the 6th Amendment is closely aligned with this defendant's right to legal council, providing a useful direction in resolving the tension between the old and new issues. The fact that the state of Flordia should provide Mr. Gideon with a lawer is obvious because the 6th Amendment guarantees a person the right to consult a lawyer in his or her defense and if a lawyer is not appointed, such an act clearly violates the Constitution. Accordingly, these reasons and opposing viewpoints will be discussed next. The first pertinent point to make on behalf of the argument that Flordia must provide a lawyer for Mr. Gideon is that the 6th Amendment guarantees a person the right to consult a lawyer in his or her defense. For example, every person, no matter …show more content…
Gideon has the right to have an attorney in his defence is that if a lawyer is not appointed, such an act clearly violates the Constitution. To illustrate this point, if Mr. Gideon is not given a lawyer in his aid, it violates the Bill of Rights, and therefore, the Constitution. As an additional point of view, if Mr. Gideon is denied these basic rights given by birth to every American citizen, how long will it be until the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are either entirely ignored or discarded? In short, whenever these rights are slandered, they must be fought for and