We know that the "right to face your accuser" is civil, as it is
granted in the US Constitution.  My question is, is this same right
inalienable?  If so, what modern and historical instances/quotations
do we have to show it?  Did our nation's founders ever write anything
regarding the INALIENABLE right to face your accuser, or can we only
support it as being civil?

The inalienable rights, as mentioned in the Declaration of
Independence, are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Thomas
Jefferson was strongly influenced by the Virginia Declaration of
Rights adopted by the House of Burgesses on 12 June 1776 when he was
writing the first part of the DoI.

While the Constitution's main body outlines the framework of our
Government, the rights of the people are left to its amendments. These
amendments can be changed, repealed, and modified.

If Congress wants to grant equal status to a disenfranchised class, it can.

If Congress wants to establish a State religion, it can.

If Congress wants to ban guns, it can.

If Congress wants to pass a law that allows the Preznut to spy on
American Citizens, it can. Note that the same Preznut can't just
decide to go eavesdropping on Americans on his own volition. In that
case, the Preznut should be censured. Or impeached. After all, I am of
the opinion that getting a little nookie and fibbing about it is
hardly as bad as violating the Law of the Land.

I look forward to a delightful analysis of your question by a Researcher.

Getting a little nookie and "fibbing" about it in a court of law while
under oath IS violating the law of the land.

So is driving drunk. MADD insists that for every person caught driving
drunk, that person has done the same thing 26 times. Hogwash, I say,
but then I'm not a mother and I am not drunk.

There are obviously different levels of severity of crimes or why
would there be different punishments?

So what's the appropriate punishment for blatently violating the
constitution? Keep in mind telling a white lie to cover up your sexual
dalliances isn't unconstitutional, but violating the Fourth (at least)
Amemndment is.

It's true enough, the declaration clause does specify life, liberty,
pursuit of happiness as being inalienable - but it only specifies
those as SOME inalienable rights.  You may not that the clause reads,
"...All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness..."

In light of this, we are left to assume that certain inalienable
rights go un-specified.  Consider the fact that the Constitution was
written to preserve the inalienable rights in America (or more
specifically, to establish justice), and consider that the bill of
rights was written mostly by the same group of men who wrote the
Constitution.  Finally, consider that the amendments to the
Constitution are considered an integral part of it; with these things
in mind, a right which is established in the fifth amendment could be
considered a "just/inalienable" right.  Is this an illogical thought?

This is where my question applies.  Why was the fifth amendment
passed?  If we can get inside the minds of the men who discerned this
right by looking at some of their quotations, we can determine if they
believed that it was inalienable, or simply "good".