Does the rule of law apply to all citizens of this country?  Answer: yes Is there anyone in this country for whom the rule of law does not apply.  Answer: no

When someone in a position of power in the government breaks the law, should that person be held accountable no matter what position he or she holds?  If we are all equal citizens under the law, then the answer must be yes.

Should a member of Congress, a federal judge or the president be charged for a crime when he or she violates the law?  The answer should be yes, but it really looks like they are all above the law.  If they cannot be arrested while in office, they would be immune from prosecution until they were no longer in office.  And if the statute of limitations has been exceeded, what then?  To delay the charging and prosecution of unlawful behavior by any government official because he or she holds an elected or appointed office starts the slippery slide into anarchy.

The only remedies for lawlessness that I can find in the constitution are resignation or impeachment.

This means an outlaw who refuses to resign can continue to serve as the people’s representative unless impeached.  In the present political environment, this means that since the members of Congress are more loyal to their party and holding power than the good of the people and the country, impeachment is not an option.

Unlawful behavior of any government official cannot be tolerated.  If the current occupant of an office has committed a crime, then there must be a way to remove that person from office without waiting for the next election, impeachment or a resignation.  People who break the law are outlaws who must be prosecuted no matter what elected or appointed office they hold.  Unfortunately, it appears to me that our founding fathers expected those who held office would place their loyalty to the country above their personal interests.  Sadly, this is no longer true—if it ever was.  There has to be another mechanism where people who hold office can be removed from office without impeachment or resignation.

The positions described in the constitution are permanent unless changed by constitutional amendment, but the occupant of each permanent position is temporary.  There must be a way to distinguish between the current occupant of a government office and the office itself.

Once charged with a crime, that person should temporarily be removed from office and be unable to exercise any duties of the office while the criminal charges are being investigated and adjudicated.  If the person is found innocent, they resume their position–and if found guilty, they are sentenced for their crime and removed from office.  A probation sentence would require removal.  For this to be effective, any trial must be held within one month of the charge being made.  The current system of months and years before trial would be unacceptable.  Note that lawyers are paid by the hour and have no budget and schedule, so the way I see it, they will not be in favor of a speedy trial.  The main disadvantage with this system is that false charges could be made solely to remove someone from office.  Should this be the case, then the party making the false charges would be guilty of bearing false witness and must be prosecuted for that crime with a minimum sentence upon conviction of at least ten years in prison.

Another way to control an out-of-control government is to insist that all government officials sign an employment contract.  This contract would spell out specific items the candidate for the office would pursue should he or she be elected.  It would legally require resignation from office on non compliance.  If someone does not want to sign an employment contract, then you can be reasonably be assured that this individual will not have the people’s best interests in mind while in office.  This type of individual wants to lie to get elected and then do what he or she wants after getting elected—the worst kind of professional politician.  When the contract is violated, the violation becomes a legal action that would require the politician to be removed from office.  Once again, the politician would be prohibited from exercising all duties of the office until a final determination of innocence or guilt had been determined.  A time limit must be imposed for resolution because the lawyers will want to drag things out for years if possible.  After all, the more time they spend, the more money they make.

A third way  would be for an election to be held to recall the person.  Should say 10% of the registered voters in any jurisdiction sign a petition to remove that individual from office.  Then a recall election would be held.  This would apply to any elected or appointed individual holding a government office.  The professional politicians would object to this method as being too expensive, but then they only worry about themselves and spend our money without any regard as to how much money is being spent.  The beauty of the recall system is that it allows the ordinary citizen to participate in any remedy to the abuses of government power and control.  Should this system of redress be adopted, this procedure could also be used to nullify any court decision or bad legislation.  I seem to recall that our government is supposed of and by the people instead of and by some people who have appointed themselves as our rulers.

A question that needs answering is at what point does government abuse of power and lawlessness become anarchy.  More importantly, what do we do when we perceive that this point has been reached.