Power to the People

Q: Do the Bill of Rights apply to Congress and Congress alone?

A: This is a difficult question to answer in 500 or 600 words. The short version of the answer is “yes” and “yes,” but maybe not for the reasons you are thinking.

To explain a bit further, let us dip into some governmental philosophy. Governments, much like corporations, are non-entities. That is, they are the creations of legal documents and the coalescence of ideas, as proposed (of course) by humans. In the creation of a government, like our Democratic Republic, we as citizens effectively say, “Look, we recognize that we are, by birth and nature, free and ought to be permitted to live as such. But, we recognize that there is a need for some parameters to be set in our society. We recognize that even nature has rules that are so deep, so pervasive, so ingrained in we the created that we must codify them. Therefore, we will place that freedom in the stewardship of something we will call government.”

That is a simplistic summary, indeed, but the main point is very important: citizens possess the rights and freedoms as – coining the words of the Declaration of Independence – inalienably endowed to them by their Creator. Whatever power our government has, therefore, is subject to approval or disapproval by we the governed. Thus, the Constitution establishes the form necessary to govern the collective whole.

Are you with me still? Good. Back to the question.

The Bill of Rights applies to all citizens. That is, it secures the inalienable rights our Declaration of Independence suggests we posses in written form. Hence, we the citizenry can invoke any one of the provisions of the constitution and subsequent amendments. For instance, the Second Amendment permits us to possess and bear arms – even, in extraordinary circumstances, against the government itself. Essentially, the Bill of Rights functions to say to government, “We the people say this far you may go and no farther.”

Yet, what of the Bill of Rights as it concerns Congress? As originally designed, the Bill of Rights is the written consent of the governed; it is the margin to government. It works to say that government – as Thomas Paine once suggested, “In its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst, an intolerable one” – must be restrained.

And this makes sense. Why would we the governed allow a non-entity, of our own creation and management, to go beyond our inalienable rights? While there is a need to provide for an ordered society, that ordering must be subject to those it governs and, borrowing again, “to the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”

If this all sounds vaguely familiar, pull out your pocket Constitution and turn with me to the Ninth Amendment where it states, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” And, as if to underscore the point, the Founding Fathers added the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In answer to the question, yes, the whole of the Constitution applies against Congress as a boundary, guaranteeing the application of the freedoms secured therein to the people. Where government overreaches, the Bill of Rights freely applies to the people as a shield against an invasive government, guaranteeing the survival of the freedoms inalienably endowed to them by their Creator.

__________________
Copyright Jeremiah G. Dys 2007. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Still a Nation of Men

Q: What does it mean that we are a nation “of laws not men?”

A: This sound bite is taken from one of the earliest cases in American jurisprudence: Marbury v. Madison, a case held out as justifying the doctrine of judicial review. It was Chief Justice John Marshall who authored the now infamous phrase, saying: “The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not men.” Marshall’s infamous one-liner has resounded through the ages finding voice in Presidential addresses and protest marches alike.

To be a nation “of laws and not men,” removes the subjectivity of fool-hearted men and imposes the objective independence of the law. In an ideal sense, the phrase suggests that each citizen of this fair country – the poor, the rich, the farmer, the broker, the Senator, the dog catcher – is under the law. Stated another way, no one is above the law.

In a certain sense, this has remained true. We have seen presidencies toppled because the Chief Executive broke the very laws he was charged with executing. Judges, Senators, and Congressmen alike have all been brought from lofty positions of power to none at all by the sword of Lady Justice. Indeed, it is Lady Justice that embodies Marshall’s words: she wields her sword blindly, caring not for whom it strikes, but only for justice.

But is this the case today? Are we truly a nation “of laws not men?”

Some may point to the perceived illegalities of wars or covert activities of government. Some may suggest the actions of certain judges liken them more to subjective legislators, rather than dispassionate arbiters. Some may even suggest that laws can have no objective basis for what is right for one might be wrong for the next. In so doing, each is implicitly attempting to debunk the wisdom that was Marshall’s mantra.

Marshall appears not even to agree with himself. He went on in Marbury to say, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” In so stating, he seemingly elevated to a position above the law his brethren of the black robe.

But the seeming dichotomy is explained by understanding, as Marshall did, the three interconnected sources of law. There is a fundamental law. This is what is referred to in our Declaration of Independence as “the Law of Nature, and of Nature’s God.” It is a transcendent law, inescapable in its universal application. But there is also constitutional law, which establishes the order and form of our civil government.

Finally, there is the legislative law, as written by legislators. Interestingly, the word “legislator” means, literally, “to carry the law.” A legislator, then, is to carry the law that exists at the fundamental level and apply it to the constitutional framework. Apart from that, law lacks meaning and is contrary to the very fabric of nature. That duty of a legislator is what is meant by another famous phrase: “law is found, not made.”

The law of the legislator must agree with the “Law of Nature, and of Nature’s God” lest our rights be weakened at the fundamental level and we become a nation of men and not law.

________________________
Copyright Jeremiah G. Dys 2007. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

The Waiting Game

Q: Why does it take so long to get from arraignment to trial?

A: When last we left our alleged criminal, he had just posted bail. We assume, then, that he is out and about under a variety of conditions. Meanwhile, attorneys are busy prepping the case for trial.

Quick review: Our alleged criminal was arrested, indicted by a large and in charge grand jury, which produced an indictment, that invited him to an arraignment, where he entered a plea, and the court secured his continued participation by attaching him to a hefty bond. The next step, you would think, would be the trial. But, in a weird way, you would be wrong. The next step is actually what we call the “pre-trial period.”

Dear Sidebar, You went to four years of college, three years of law school, studied for and passed the bar exam all to prepare you to come up with a fancy term like “pre-trial period?” Isn’t there a Latin phrase that you could use to make us actually think you are smart? Signed, the Anti-Hyphen Defamation League.

Dear Anti-Hyphenites, Absolutimus notus. Signed, Sidebar.

The pre-trial period is simply a period of time for both side of the case to investigate the charges, develop trial theories, make pre-trial motions, and, generally, get to know the ins-and-outs of the case. It is a period of time that can be quite lengthy. For instance, if the crime requires collaboration with the scientific community (e.g. coroner, crime lab, forensics, DNA, handwriting expert, etc.), those tests or experiments may take some time to complete – especially if there is a backlog of cases preceding yours.

Actually, criminal trials usually come to trial quite quickly. Most criminal cases go from arraignment to trial (or plea agreement) in under a year, at most, two years. Civil cases are usually much longer, going from complaint to trial (or settlement) anywhere from one to ten years.

The answer to why criminal cases go to trial more quickly is found in the Sixth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial . . ..” Although, I am not sure any “accused” is going to actually “enjoy” the speedy trial, we understand what is meant. The further and further you get away from the alleged crime, the more witnesses disappear, memories fade, and evidence becomes unavailable. In short, the case becomes much more difficult to try and defend.

In West Virginia, our Constitution terms “speedy trial” as one conducted “without unreasonable delay.” What is more, the Legislature has passed a law that entitles a criminal defendant to have his or her case tried within three terms of court following the indictment. Since, in the calendar year, there are three terms of court in West Virginia, this means that a criminal defendant has the right to have his or her case tried one year from being indicted. Of course, there may be strategic reasons for the criminal defendant to continue or delay the start of a trial beyond the three-term rule. Nonetheless, a speedy or un-delayed trial, is a constitutional and legislative right for the criminal defendant.

In reality, the answer to the question requires the asking of another question: why does it not take longer? Considering the amount of investigation, research, and planning that is required, a year or two is not so bad.

Next week, we begin the trial.

________________

Copyright Jeremiah G. Dys 2007. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Grand Jury Not All About the Numbers

Q: What is a “grand jury?”

A: Before I went to law school, I often wondered what was so “grand” about a jury anyway. The talking heads on TV often said smart things about, “the grand jury did this” or “he was brought before the grand jury.” It all sounded so secretive, so filled with intrigue. It really irked me that I did not know the first ting about the grand jury.

In law school, I finally got to peak behind the veil of secrecy that is the grand jury. You know what I saw? I learned that a grand jury is a really big jury. Hardly the stirring answer I wager you expected.

Okay, that is only part of the answer. It is true that a grand jury is bigger than a petit jury by at least four people. A grand jury, in West Virginia, is made up of sixteen persons, whereas a petit jury – the typical jury that you normally think of – consists of six (for civil trials) or twelve (for criminal trials) persons. In some U.S. jurisdictions, grand juries can be made up of as many as twenty-three persons.

But size is not all that matters when it comes to defining a grand jury. Function is of prime importance. A grand jury decides whether the facts of a given situation are sufficient to issue an indictment and, in so doing, begin the criminal trial process. Prosecutors spend hours presenting the grand jury with facts and law in an attempt to demonstrate why so-and-so should be tried for such-and-such crime. If at least twelve of the grand jurors agree that there exists probable cause that a person should be tried for the crime charged, an indictment is issued and the criminal process begins.

Grand juries are required before any American can be tried for the commission of a felony. That is a guarantee secured for us by the Bill of Rights of both the U.S. Constitution (Amendment 5) and the Constitution of West Virginia (Article III, Section 4). Why is a grand jury among the foundational rights of the American system of governance?

To answer that, we must go back to the year 1215 and a field called Runnymede when King John signed the Magna Carta guaranteeing the first grand jury. Up to that point, if the King charged someone with a crime – justly or not – the person stood charged and, often, summarily tried, convicted, and sentenced. The grand jury interposed an objective and independent group of peers into the process. They effectively required the sovereign to give good evidence and just cause before someone was sent to trial. Our founding fathers noted that this idea was in keeping with the core principles of freedom and fairness and adopted the concept, as now embodied in the Fith Amendment.

Today, the U.S. is one of the only countries to still use the grand jury system. Other countries have similar procedures in place to make sure the government does not unjustly try innocents for crimes they did not commit, but few are like the grand jury system we employ. And, of course, some countries are still ruled by the whim and fancy of the despot.

Without such a stopgap, a government’s reach could do silently what its citizenry would never permit it to do, if done publicly. The grand jury, therefore, is yet one more hallmark of freedom in the governance of, by, and for the people.

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, 2007. May not be used absent the express, written permission of the author. For permission to reprint, please contact the author.

A Truly Precedential Column

Q: What is “precedent” and what affect does it have?

A: Any dictionary will tell you that a “precedent” is a legal decision that has an authoritative impact on cases of a similar nature. But, if you want to really be fancy and impress the neighbors, you should call it stare decisis, pronounced “STAHR-ee di-SIGH-sis,” literally meaning, “to stand by things decided.”

A decision becomes “precedent” when the highest court in the given jurisdiction gives final interpretation to the law. Recall from high school civics that, as our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States said, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department [the courts] to say what the law is.” What Chief Justice Marshall wrote simply echoed Alexander Hamilton’s words in The Federalist Papers, No. 78, “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.” Ultimately, this notion became known as “judicial review.”

What we have then, are two basic sources for our laws, each based upon a fundamental, legal building block. One source is legislative. The Legislative body determines the “will of the people,” writes laws to provide for our collective goodwill, and ask that they be implemented by the Executive. But, the Judiciary acts to ensure that the rights of the people are not trampled by the acts of government. As Hamilton put it No. 78, “the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”

That is, we as a society have consented to be governed and put that governing trust in the hands of a government. That consent has taken the form of our Constitution, the foundation for our laws. If that government acts contrary to what we have consented in the Constitution, then the government (our agents) must give way to the constitution (our intent).

That brings us to the second source for our laws: common law. Common law is a fancy way of saying judicial decisions. The significance of why it is called, “common law” we will leave for later. Suffice for the present to say that common law has equal effect as legislative law. Judicial decisions “say what the law is,” so to speak. Where it crosses our consent by actions of our agents, it is unconstitutional.

But, once written, the judicial opinion becomes authoritative even over the piece of legislation is has then ruled upon. The Legislative branch would, therefore, have to write a law that would not conflict with that decision. If it legislates afoul of that judicial opinion, it will be invalidated by that governmental watchdog: the Judiciary.

Not only must subsequent legislation conform to that decision of the court, subsequent courts must also “stand by things decided.” In other words, the decision has “set a precedent.”

Setting precedent is a very serious matter. In order to overcome it, a court must essentially admit that it was wrong and change its mind – an act seldom undertaken. And, because our consent – in the form of the Constitution – is so fundamental to the foundation of our government, the importance of wisely reviewing our laws cannot be understated. Nor can the importance of placing the wisest and most prudent jurists on the bench.

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Venues: They are a Changin'

Q: What is a “change of venue?”

A: Before an answer to this question can be properly understood, you must understand that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees an alleged criminal the right to a “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district” where the crime allegedly occurred. Key in on that word “impartial;” its importance will be shown shortly.

Here’s what normally happens. A criminal is arrested and indicted for the commission of a crime. Ultimately, the criminal defendant will get the opportunity to defend the charges brought against him in an appropriate court of law. That defense takes place in the form of a trial. Criminal trials are presided over by a judge and a jury. The judge governs matters of law, while the jury is the determiner of facts. That jury, for a criminal trial, consists of twelve individuals who are residents of that county.

Most of the time, we are blissfully unaware of all the sordid details of the crimes that happen within our community on a routine basis. But what happens when a “high-profile” case comes to trial? Trials for cases that have already been tried in the court of public opinion present an especially difficult issue when it comes time to make payment on that Constitutional guarantee of an impartial jury.

Sometimes, the projected jury pool could be so vastly biased that it is necessary to find another jury pool. Enter “change of venue.” Venue is simply the place where the trial will occur. When we speak of changing venue, lawyers mean that the trial needs to change location. So, if the case is pending in County X, but County X is determined to be frightfully biased, the trial of the case is moved to County Y, using all the lawyers, witnesses, and even judges that would have been used in County X, but jurors from County Y in an effort to ensure impartiality.

Changes of venue are few and far between. One reason for that is the law, which requires a defendant to prove “the existence of a locally extensive present hostile sentiment against him,” as one court put it. The Rules of Criminal Procedure require the existence of “so great a prejudice against the defendant” that no “fair and impartial trial” can be had in the place the law demands trial. Proof of such a pervasive bias is undeniably difficult.

Why? Well, say there are 80,000 people residing in the current venue. The jury only needs to be twelve people. We all know that you, dear readers, keep well-informed of the goings-on of this county, but not all of our fine residents do – by this paper, radio, or television. It is safe to say, frankly, that most of our neighbors have no idea what is going on down at the courthouse. Only twelve people who know nothing of the criminal defendant or alleged crime need to be found to secure impartiality. Finding those twelve can be surprisingly less difficult than you may think.

The reason the burden is so heavy upon a criminal defendant is that there are great costs to changing venue. Where do you go to be free of the bias? What does it cost to transport the entire trial to the new place of venue? What evidence must make the trip?
Our system of justice functions well to ensure impartiality. It depends upon the honesty of prospective jurors to confess bias, should they have any. Empanelling “an impartial jury of the State and district” where the crime allegedly occurred happens far more often than not.

Impartial juries: just one more indication of your importance to the assuaging of injustice in this fine country.

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Who Pulls the Trigger on War Power?

Q: President Bush wants to send more troops to Iraq. The Democrats majority in Congress does not want more troops sent. What branch of government holds the power of war?

A: Power is all the rage lately. The out-of-shape, take “power walks.” The sleep-deprived take “power naps.” The leisurely lunch, has been replaced with “power lunches,” where “power bars” are the main course. Even, or perhaps especially, in politics, the grab for power often leaves those who matter most in a lurch. Such seems to be the state of this week’s affairs.

On Wednesday, President Bush announced his plan to send more troops to Iraq. The day before, Sen. Ted Kennedy gave a “pre-buttal” to the President’s speech. The day after the presidential prime time address, Congressmen and Senators were wagging their tongues in a flurry of speeches that say only enough to get them airtime on the major news networks. All the hullabaloo is about who has the power over the troops.

The President has laid out a plan to increase troop presence and action in Baghdad. The Democratic halls of Congress, still full of vim and vigor from November, are making empty threats to prevent such a malefaction. Sen. Harry Reid is proposing a “non-binding” Senate resolution that expresses disapproval of the President’s newest plan. Speaker Pelosi will no doubt follow suit. But who wins the power war? More importantly, who loses?

I am not going to argue the merits or detractions of the President’s plan. But, in order to sift through the rhetoric of both sides of the aisle, let me give you some power of your own; a “separation of powers,” to be precise.

The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, according to Article II, Section 2 of our U.S. Constitution. Thus, he has the authority to position – without any branch of government’s approval or permission – the finest military in the world. As one of his chief duties as President, it falls to him to organize, prepare, and strategically place our military so as “to provide for the common defense.”

That brings us to Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution, which bestows the power to fund such a common defense upon the Legislative branch. What is more, if there is war to be declared, that too falls to the Legislature, as does the very raising, supporting, equipping, and regulating of the army, navy, and militia.

Hence the two seemed locked in an un-ending struggle. While the President sets the course, turns the wheel, and aims the barrel, it is the Congress that buys the gas and turns the key of the military machine that drives us into battle. Unless the two work in concert, war is not possible. Unless the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue act in complementarity, military actions will fail before they begin.

As you listen to Senators and Congressmen huff and puff as they try to blow the White House down, remember that the side you disagree with must also be complicit in that with which you lodge your agreement. That is, if you like the idea of more troops, then you need the Legislature to adequately fund them. If you prefer fewer boots on the ground in the Green Zone, only the Executive can order them home. They may be bitter bedfellows, but for the American military to be at its most powerful, the power we often refer to as separate, must work in tandem.

In the final analysis, the most powerful weapons in our current conflict are the grunts, flyboys, leathernecks, and mates of the U.S. Armed Forces. May God bless their mission and bring them home safely. And soon.

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

On Government and the Tenth Amendment

In explaining the virtues of the U.S. Constitution, Patrick Henry once said, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”

Henry lived in an age where what the king proclaimed was law. The king was the sovereign and, befitting of such a title, his rule was not to be questioned. Thus, the government conducted at the hands of the king often followed the whims and fancy of the monarch. His rule was not unlike the dictatorial styles of many tyrants today. Few typified this more than King George III, the monarch from whom we as Americans declared our independence in 1776.

Throwing over a despot may be rather simple. The devil is in the details of providing sufficient freedom through accountability. As the patriots of old threw off the chains of a monarchy, a government needed to be installed, lest anarchy become the rule of the day. Our founding fathers chose to install a democracy within a republic, by means of a Constitution.

A constitution is simply a founding document for an organization. Within its words are laid the rights and responsibilities of the institution and its members. With the U.S. Constitution, we see express powers given to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of our government. But not every power is expressly surrendered to our government.

In fact, the Tenth Amendment recognizes that fact when it says, “The powers not delegated to the United States . . .are reserved . . . to the people.” Thus, Henry’s explanation comes into focus.

Our freedom is at its greatest when government is most restrained. Our government, unique among a variety of forms, does not act upon the whim and fancy of a sovereign. Ours is a government instituted by its people. Our citizenry determines how far the government will reach. Our government is one of accountability.

One of Patrick Henry’s contemporaries, Thomas Paine, made the observation, “Government at its best is a necessary evil, and at its worst, an intolerable one.” We need government to maintain order, to provide for the common defense; however, only in a limited, accountable fashion do we provide for a government to use some of those rights corporately to do that which we cannot do individually. The rights remain our own. Government is not the panacea for a world of trouble.

The more we relinquish our rights to government – expressly or by silent inaction – the more it will come to “dominate our lives and interests.” Exercise your freedom. Restrain your government.

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.