The AMERICAN Rule of Law

It troubles me greatly even as I've come to expect it from the average American.

The Constitution of the United States of America and American Jurisprudence are two of the most mis-understood things on planet earth today. Everybody quotes what they THINK it says, nobody takes the time to actually READ and UNDERSTAND.

Frankly, I GET that the Criminal Justice System is So misunderstood, but the Constitution? The ESSENTIAL document of what being AMERICA is all about?

I'll give you an example. The other day I casually posted on somebodys post, that banning Muslims in America is unconstitutional. I was very nearly overrun by folks rushing to the defense of poor Americans everywhere who can't even recite the FIRST AMMENDMENT to the Constituion all the while preaching the wonder and splendor of the Second.

What part of THERE WILL BE NO NATIONAL RELIGION is difficult to understand? There won't BE any...that's it, that's all. Christianity is not our national relgion, nor is the First Church of the Good Book Jesus and the Discount House of Worship.

It ALSO means that we, as Americans, have ZERO right to tell ANYONE who, what, when where or why they should worship. IF we give the right to a group to villify Muslims, then we have no reasonable expectation of being protected under the same law. You simply can't have it both ways.

The Criminal Justice System is far from perfect, but it is, none-the-less, the best thing the world happens to have. It is not nearly as complicated as it is made out to be, even though State's Laws will differ and create some absurdities.

When someone is "indicted," that means that they stand not only accused of a crime, but that either a Grand Jury or a Judge has "found" there there is "probable cause" to believe that the crime DID occur AND that the accused perpetrated said crime. An indictment is NOT a guilty verdict, simply an ORDER of the COURT that the accused shall come under the rule of the court and stand to answer for the crime.

In a Grand Jury proceeding, which is held in SECRET, not even the accused may have his attorney present should be decide to attend and testify which, frankly, is the most ignorant thing any accused could do ASIDE from cooperating with the Police. A Defendant should NEVER EVER speak to the Police OR a Grand Jury without competent counsel for a fool and his freedom are soon separated. Only a fool believes that giving testimony without being represented is a wise move, even if it does have a tendency to tick off the authorities. Simply put, ANY defense counsel will tell you, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

It's often been said, that a Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich. The Grand Jury system is the tool of the prosecution. When they don't wish to take a chance in an open preliminary hearing with cousel present from both sides and discovery open, they will secret themselves behind a veil of silence and the Grand Jury. This also has the "benefit" to the Prosecution, of allowing them time to build a case against the defendant all the while not providing the defense "discovery" until the court so orders.

In a Preliminary Hearing, which is held in open court, the prosecution must convince a Judge while the Defense is present, participating, and LISTENING to the evidence (discovery).

Once indicted, an accused must either stand trial or accept a plea deal. The Trial deck is ALWAYS stacked against the accused. ALWAYS. If a defendent forces a trial and is found guilty, the court will almost always impose a much stiffer sentence than would have applied under any other set of circumstances.

It is THIS particular 'power' that is used, with full knowlege of all involved, that typically drives even an innocent defendant to accept a plea deal. 30 Days with an ankle braclet or two years in prison....roll the dice and take your chances.

NOW, having said all of that, HOW, exactly does this all apply, from a Constituional persepctive, to the political spectrum of Impeachment.

The Constituion is intentionally vauge on the subject. Impeachment is a POLITICAL tool, not really a criminal tool, even though there are often comparisons. There needs NOT be any actual legal crime as much as a political crime such as abuse of power, etc. It is the instrument by which the Founders of this great Nation provided us the means to remove a "bad actor" (my words not theirs) from Office.

In the tenor of the process, the House of Representatives will "impeach" which is equated to an indictment in the criminal process. They do this by drawing up articles of impeachment, essentially an indictment of the accused, laying out what the bad act(s) are.

That is then voted on and sent to the Senate for TRIAL. As with any Grand Jury, the House process is generally in secret and once the articles of impeachment are prepared, the impeachment is a permenant part of the record, just as is an indictment in a criminal proceeding.

In the Senate, a full, open and fair trial process is undertaken, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court sitting as Judge and the Sentate Members themselves, the Jury.

Testimony is taken, cases are made for both the prosecution and the defense, and finally a jury poll is taken and the Chief Justice announces it's decision.

As with the Trial of Bill Clinton, an accused can be found guilty and not removed from Office. One may also be found guilty and removed from office.

IF the accused is found not guilty, there is not further action required, HOWEVER, the impeachment stands as a permenant part of the record. Once indicted, always indicted, even a not guilty plea is returned.

In a criminal trial, there is no retraction in the press for the negative coverage of the accused and the resultant trial, sometimes not even a story written about the end result.

This is, the American system, and while full of opportunity for unfairness, it remains the best we have.

Whether you believe what I've just written or not, depending upon your loyalties to Party rather than Country, that is your option however it doesn't change the rules, and it doesn't change the outcome of anything.

I reject, WHOLLY, that one must have any allegiance to one's party or to a particular candidate of office holder. One's Allegiance should be to the Country, the Consitution, and the Law of the land, never to anything else.