Isn&#x27;t the spirit of the amendment that <i>everyone</i> should have a good defense? The spirit of the amendment, to me, doesn&#x27;t really seem to be &quot;you can have as good a defense as you can afford&quot;, but more like, &quot;you have the right to a good defense&quot;, period. Put differently, if a public defender isn&#x27;t good enough to satisfy the spirit of the 6th amendment when someone who has money is on trial, then it should <i>also</i> not be good enough for the spirit of the 6th amendment when someone who doesn&#x27;t have money is on trial.<p>I could possibly see the spirit of the amendment better served if everyone were defended via the same public-defender system, regardless of income level. That would provide equal access to justice, and also provide middle-class and wealthy people an incentive to make sure it&#x27;s actually properly funded, since it&#x27;s the system that would defend <i>them</i>, not only poor people. I&#x27;m not sure if that&#x27;s a better or worse interpretation of the letter of the constitution, though.