The brevity of the United States of America Constitution cannot be exaggerated since it is four pages long with 4,400 words. Its concise and exact use of words presented in a readily understandable form put it among the shortest in the world. Yet, the unsuspecting truth is that few Americans take the time to read it as if they do not care what it states. Strangely and amusingly, a lot more is known about the changes made to it, of which there are 27. Our Constitution, amended only 27 times, is a good thing. Ask around and discover the common ones: First, Second, and Fifth.
The First is on freedom of religion, speech, the press, rights of assembly, and petition. The Second is the right to bear arms, and the Fifth is your rights in criminal cases, which the 45th president is said to have invoked a ridiculous 440-plus times even though he is on record saying if you are not guilty, there is no need to plead the 5th(paraphrasing).
Expressing meaning to a friend last night through gestures with my hand indicating I was shooting a gun at him, and told him I just shot him, then asked if he was going to call the police. “I do not have time to wait for the police; I will just shoot back,” I received. That is your Second Amendment right.
We have rights to speedy trials that ensure you are tried without unnecessary delay, represented by an attorney, and more. That is, our Sixth Amendment rarely talked about.
If you are accused of a crime, your lawyers are expected to put themselves in your position and do everything possible to add value to your needs. Someone who has been sued, especially by the State(s), does not want to sit through depositions, produce documents and agonize through an extended jury trial if there is a way to avoid all that. They want a prompt and sensible resolution that involves minimum inconvenience and expense. They expect their lawyer(s) to execute a strategy that attempts minimal activity and risk and achieve timely and equitable solutions. The Constitution guarantees a free lawyer if you are indigent.
Why would anyone fight for a protracted or delayed trial if the right to a speedy trial is beneficial? Nowhere does it say if you are applying for a job and about to be charged with a crime, the court case must wait until your application is processed.
Francis Baldwin Deen 
Nice, I wasn’t expecting you to finish so quickly👍🏾 I thought of reasons why one would want to delay their trial, “ice the jury”. Most major cases, 45’s in particular, is played nonstop in the media. Delaying the trial is a way of getting the public (possible jury) to forget things said and/or done by the defendant/media. I can elaborate in our next conversation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your comment and dinner last night. I look forward to a continued conversation on the topic. (Disclosure: Roxie is my daughter-in-law)
LikeLike
A great read. Brevity and Educative.
Thank you so much for enlightening me. I appreciate your take on issues, and the bravado to openly discuss.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Brother Dave. You are welcome to express you views here.
LikeLike
For all its merit, the US Constitution is now facing an unprecedented challenge that its authors may not have envisaged. As the January 6 insurrection demonstrated, a Constitution by itself, no matter how well-crafted and comprehensive, does not preempt an individual or a group of conspirators from seeking to usurp power from a legitimately elected government. That said, it is a credit to the democratic institutions of the country that they have withstood the false allegations of vote rigging made by a president who lost a free and fair election, then concocted a fake electors’ scheme that backfired, and incited a mob of insurrectionists to attack the Capitol, all in a desperate bid to overthrow a government elected by the people.
Granted, the rule of law in the country dictates that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yet, where do we draw the line between “free speech” and a blatant effort to incite violence? Besides, if the Supreme Court dominated by conservative GOP-appointed judges has gone rogue, what can ordinary citizens do? Also, how can the legislative branch of government function properly when the party in control of the House of Representatives chooses to be dysfunctional and is only driven by conspiracy theories, a White Supremacist agenda, and blindly follows, in cult-like fashion, an ex-president who staged a botched coup d’état?
While it is true that most Americans may not have read the US Constitution, they do have a sense of its basic contents; “freedom of speech” and the right to bear firearms, for example. Conversely, it is most likely that the majority of the insurrectionists were aware that they were committing a crime by breaking into the Capitol and fighting against the police who were performing their duty.
Meanwhile, GOP lawmakers themselves talk and behave as if the Constitution does not exist, especially as they seek to normalize potential crimes committed by a twice-impeached ex-president. In truth, there is a big difference between the court of law, where every individual, no matter his/her status, must face a jury that decides the outcome of a case, and the court of public opinion, where anyone, guilty or not, can make a case for himself/herself to sway the views of those who care to listen.
All told, one fundamental principle guiding the rule of law is that “no one is above the law”—not even an ex-president. In short, if found guilty of committing crimes, an ex-president serving jail time should not be viewed as an anomaly. In the words of US President Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909), “No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor.” (Third Annual Message to the Senate and House of Representatives, December 7, 1903).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tams (Dr. M’bayo),
This is your blog. Thanks for your indispensable contribution.
LikeLike