As per any constitution of any country a public leader is debared from doing anything prejucial to the safety and security of his/her national interest. But very often than not, they grossly violet the provision of the constitution. and every time, they are let off, overlooking the gravity of the offence by simply stating it is politics.But when a criminal lies about stealing simply a house hold equipment which is not as grave an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Is this the fault of law itself, the public in general or the persons interpreting the law for implementation. who is to be blamed for  using descretion in utter violation of law in this matter. if somebody is found responsible then why the person/persons should not be punished on the principle that none is above law. when such variations are observed then can we say law is blind and  none is above law. does it not depict law is two eyed Jack pretending blind, hood winking the poor illiterates.Govt.to answer?
123173
A CRIMINAL is convicted because of sufficient evidence that convinces a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty of a CRIME.  Lying under oath is called perjury, and although a crime, is almost never prosecuted.
583821
Folks are kind of missing that it wasn't a voluntary act.  If he did it himself then yes he is guilty of public indecency, if he had it done to him then he was actually a victim in the eyes of the law.\n\nWhether he would get a drunk and incapable/disorderly charge is another thing.
62387
Sounds like your doing some finger pointing yourself.  Politicians are always blaming someone else.  Misdirection is the name of the game.
291022
Although imaginative, your idea would violate the "cases and controversies" clause in Article 3 of the Constitution.  That clause has been interpreted to mean only actual cases in which a person who has really been affected or is about to be affected brings an actual controversy before the courts.  US federal courts can not try to imagine how a law or Presidential act is going to play out and just decide it's unconstitutional.  Somebody always has to file an actual lawsuit or be charged with an actual crime before the courts have any power to do anything in our system -- which sorta deflates the nonsense we hear about activist judges in this country.\n\nIn many other countries, including many European democracies, the system works differently.  Those countries often have "constitutional courts" that basically check laws as they're being made to decide whether they are going to be ok or not.  If not, they are often returned to parliament to be re-worked.  Of course, courts in general there work very, very differently from what we're used to in the US, and they are not always an independent branch like they are here.  That's why it makes sense to limit the power of our federal courts by making them more passive, removing their ability to have a voice on subjects where no real trouble has yet arisen.\n\nAlso, the Constitution's second Article gives the President a lot of trust and authority precisely so our country would have somebody in a position to handle emergencies quickly and without long debates.  The President has a duty to keep secrets, even from the courts unless -- yup, unless an actual case or controversy comes from a valid lawsuit or a criminal charge.  Making the President keep members of the judicial branch around with him to hear all his secrets would violate the separation of powers that is so important to the structure of our republic.\n\nIn any case, we do have judges who sit in special federal courts, where the judges have top security clearance and are supposed to review the President's activities, grant or deny him search warrants, and that sort of thing.  Sadly, this President has decided that, despite what the laws say, he can ignore that court and its judges.  I see little reason at this point to trust that he would cooperate with judges or obey their rulings in your plan any more than he already has in reality.
222363
Yes they must be held totally responsible. But we have a disparate group of about 545 humans sitting n holding the parliament WHO DO NOT HAVE THE GUTS to call a spade a spade. If you want to point a finger at another, you also need to scratch your head about what would happen if he repoints his finger at you!! - this is the kind of situation in Indian parliament! It is sad that we are still not able to find one President who has the guts to get out of Rashtrapati Bhawan on sighting corruption or a Prime Minister who has the guts to catch and kick out the corrupt minister/sr.officer. Public cooperation/awareness, initiate, enthusiasm etc. are so low nothing can be done about corruption in India. The grovelling culture of India has weakened the system. Public honesty is pretty low. When kids are taught to follow honesty and to have pride, maybe in course of time, things might change in India.
527293
Birds of a feather flock together.  A lot of the politicians are lawyers.  Lawyers believe in the rule of law.  If it is not illegal, then it is OK to do it.  Most of believe that the law does not cover everything.  Just because it isn't illegal does not make it moral.  Remember, only criminals have rights.
675843
It begins with the constitution when that is perfect the legal system still won't be. Feel me, now why beer is legal and kills many people via drunk driving is beyond me. It killed my brother when I was 7. Now if he had been puffing the Chiba he'd still be alive. So why is it illegal. It's far from cigarettes. Which kill people everyday and yet manage to not only get sold, but get their taxes upped. Which in turn means the government makes more and more off a killer. Back to the point if we are truly innocent until proven guilty how come no one ever tries to prove our innocence? If laws get broke people get punished. But if those laws in turn allow people to be punished even after punishing them who gets the blame. No one power overshadows everything. They won't check it so there will be no balance. But there will always be a deficit. So money makes America go round and will always be welcome. What is fair and what is fair enough is the unbreakable answer.
2908
It's definitely a shame when authority figures abuse their power, and it's often difficult to bring justice since they are in certain ways "above the law" though they shouldn't be.\n\nHowever, I'm not quite sure what the question here is. I'm sorry, but it's very hard to follow.
589118
well... to me... it's about the law and interpretation of the law... and consistently legislating the law in accordance with the constitution...\n\nI mean... is it hurting anyone? I don't know the exactly law, so it could be constitutional, but what little I do know of it, it seems sketchy...\n\nso the government spent all this time legislating it... then they arrest someone... it goes through the courts and gets appealed and so forth... over and over again.. until.... it finally is overturned\n\nbetween the money we spend on legislators legislating the law, lawyers defending it and police executing the law... it's millions... and then it would seem to be overturned... all that for nothing?\n\nI mean... I think the protesters are bastards and crazy... but so is the KKK... and everyone must have the same rights...
60295
An interesting question.\n\nFirst: I might be completely wrong, and if I am I hope someone comes along and clears this up.\n\nBut: I don't think there is a law that specifically prohibits entrapment.  \n\nHowever: there is a successful defense to a crime if the government enticed the defendant into committing a crime the defendant would not have normally committed.  So, by virtue of the fact that you would be found not guilty if you can prove entrapment, there is, for all intents and purposes, a "law" that prohibits it.\n\nI can't tell you what that's based on, but I don't think the Constitution specifically addresses it.  I think it's probably more just a matter of fairness (courts are not going to let the government entice citizens into committing crimes).
110581
Maybe when he actual does something illegal.  The constitution does protect politicians too, you know.  Just like you he's innocent until proven guilty.
361190
Possessed by demons? Often an accusation levied against people who do not fit societies current specification for optimum citizen.\nThose that actually commit crime should be judged as any others by the legal system. Let us end the insane insanity excuse for evading responsibility for crime.
647198
Some laws which deal with public safety should not be ignored.\nSeat belts. Speed limits. Drunken driving\nLaws which deal with personal choices/freedoms are so stupid one cannot help but ignore them. Drugs.
201886
A law makes no specification about whether others are present, and so the law has been "broken." I like to use a sociologist's point of view, so I would say that a law is just a very formal norm; as such, since you are not really acting in society, I would say that the law really has no bearing. You could argue that learned behavior should generalize to when you are alone, but this does not have to be the case.
267637
If government agencies such as the NSA are allowed to overhear or read private phone conversations or e-mails or otherwise scrutinize private communications of people who live in this country — whether citizens or non-citizens — *without* the scrutiny and oversight of judges, who are in the last instance answerable to the law and to the public, they are creating a domain within the state that is exempt from the sovereignty of the people. This undermines democracy (however fake of a democracy it is anyway) and creates a state within the statue — usually thought to be a distinguishing feature of dictatorships, in which secret services, torturers, etc. are also neither answerable to the law nor to the people.
370332
it's quite strange.  on the one hand the law worked and the guy that was calling for non muslims to be beheaded was convicted.  on the other hand, they failed to convict the bnp guy for the milder ( though still ignorant ) insults about islam that he was making.  so now they are talking about making the laws tougher so that he too would be convicted.  well, i am a bit suspicious about that and would tend to want to resist it like most comedians want to.  a belief should be strong enough to withstand free speech.
470797
WHEN YOU ARE KING OF ANY COUNTRY YOU DO RIGHT AND WRONG THINGS UNDER ADVISE OF YOUR OFFICERS OR MINISTERS.  TO GIVE ONLY BLAMES TO THE KING IS NOT RIGHT.  AS PER MY OPINION NO EX KING OF ANY COUNTRY SHOULD BE HANGED THOUGH HE IS RIGHT OR WRONG.