John Swallow Case Cries for the Sixth Amendment

As much as any other case I can think of, the John Swallow situation underlines why it is so important that the Sixth Amendment promise of a speedy and public trail should be accorded our citizens. And, it underscores that it is not happening. Of course we should have a quicker system. Why would it in any way be wrong to have a trial right after the charges come up, and to bring all the charges and evidence and witnesses that at that point are available and act on them immediately? It does seem to me that that is no more than what the Bill of Rights calls for. If the case is pursued beyond that initial trial, so be it. If further investigation is warranted, and more evidence is found, and more witnesses step forth, that is fine. We already have cases lingering in the court long past when they were started. At least by having a quick trial, some of them can be nipped.

The spirit of "a speedy and public trial" promised in the Sixth Amendment suggests that wherever we can move to resolving such issues rapidly, we should. If this means quicker impeachment proceedings, that should happen. What are we waiting for? "Speedy" does not mean waiting six months while a cloud of doubt hangs over Swallow and his office. It does not mean leaving the office strangled until a resolution is finally arranged. Every government and political body that has a determination of justice to make in the matter -- whether it is the courts, themselves, the Legislature, or the party -- should be pursuing their decisions in "a speedy and public" manner. Seems to me that way, at least if the words of the Bill of Rights are to be taken to heart.

One more thought. Injustice is not in being tried and condemned. Injustice is being condemned without being tried. No, that does not we mean we wait for the courts to run their course, for we can see that the public will condemn on its own time frame. If we are to provide justice, then, we must place the trial ahead of the public's rush to judgement.