Generally speaking, and nowadays, the Amendments don't exist in a courtroom. Why not? Because the Contract Clause, and what it has been adjudicated to mean, supersedes the Amendments. It works like this. When you go to court with an attorney, you have bypassed the Amendments by contract with your attorney, who is an officer of the court, under the judge's authority - https://www.youarelaw.org/Download/CorpusJurisSecundum-AttorneyClient.pdf and https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=corpus+juris+secundum%2C+client+attorney&ia=web. In other words, you have made a contract with the court to let it decide your case. You no longer have any say in the matter. The judge only has to follow the Amendments if she wants to, because it is now a case by contract, under contract law. This is part of the reason why Trump is having so many troubles in his trials. He contracted with the court to let the court decide. The court is acting as it is to bring Trump down, and to hide the info in this comment.

I do not seek to argue with Pure Trust, but this is actually a somewhat simpler matter than he describes, but just as pernicious. Courts of first appearance only concern themselves with whether statutes were violated, NOT whether those statutes are legal in the first place. To the judiciary, that is what appellate courts are for. So nearly any judge in any initial court is going to tell you the same thing;...Constitutional matters are not argued here. Or at least that's what they tell you when they have a bias against your take on that particular Constitutional matter. If they have a bias in FAVOR of your Constitutional principle, they are more than happy to entertain it. But they are not REQUIRED to. Indeed, it is perfectly appropriate to present and argue and cite Constitutional arguments at any point in any court.

The thing that any court does first - especially courts of first appearance - is to ascertain the 'identity' of the persons in the case. Right from the start, the so-called defendant has to express that he is not the person on the indictment. The clear evidence is that the indictment person doesn't bleed when cut by a pen-knife, but the so-called defendant does bleed. Names, addresses, and other info on the indictment might be similar to info of the so-called defendant, and the judge might say something to the effect that the info on the indictment only represents the so-called defendant, but it doesn't if the so-called defendant doesn't accept such. If the signature of the so-called defendant isn't on the the indictment, the 'person' on the indictment isn't one of his persons, by 4th Amendment. Rather, the prosecutor and the judge have stolen some of his persons' info to make up a fake person - fake until the so-called defendant accepts that it is one of his persons.