So the right for the accused to compel testimony is…? Not a right? I think you’ll find the constitution is rather too practically-minded for strict definitions

So the right for the accused to compel testimony is…? Not a right? I think you’ll find the constitution is rather too practically-minded for strict definitions that you’re advancing to be fully consistent in all cases. And that’s looking only at the text, not common law in which it’s wholly couched and assumes as context, or the constitutionally-endorsed and required interpretation of the document by the judiciary. Besides, a right that demands forced labor if the government charges you… but doesn’t prohibit the government from charging you… sure looks like a right to make demands on others, if we’re not doing some hard equivocating. That it only kicks in if a certain choice is made hardly seems material to whether it’s a right that permits one to demand something of others. And all this is beside the point of whether a particular conception of what a right is, is accurate or useful. The constitution’s framers do not appear to have held your definition as useful, which is why I thought it must have some other source.