> the US stance in rule of law seems a bit dubious as well I think I agree with where you're coming from with this statement, but not necessarily with it being

> the US stance in rule of law seems a bit dubious as well I think I agree with where you're coming from with this statement, but not necessarily with it being a negative attribute. Yes, the US is "a nation of Laws, not of Men". That only goes so far, though. Pretty much all of the US system is set up to allow individuals to apply the law in a way that they feel to be fair. This is manifested in everything from prosecutorial discretion to jury nullification. > the enormous sentences afflicted to people once, but only once, they end up in bad public standing The US Constitution specifically prohibits laws that apply directly to individuals, i.e. "Bills of Attainder". In theory at least, public opinion should inform the laws that apply to everyone equally. Those laws may be capricious and draconian, but the whole idea of the American system is that laws should represent the will of the people. The absurdity of some of our laws (sentencing in particular) is nothing if not a reflection of that. > the president pardoning his friends This isn't an unlimited power; the president is subject to oversight by Congress. That is the implicit rationale behind the impeachment process being very loosely defined: Article II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Basically, "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" means whatever Congress says it means. If they believe the President has abused their power through improper pardons, they can respond by impeaching and convicting them. This not only removes them from office but also bars them from public office in perpetuity. Note also that the president only has the power to pardon federal crimes. They have no power to pardon someone convicted under state law. > elected states attorneys incentivize to look hard on crime to their constituents That's pretty much the nature of US law - "by the People, for the People". If a prosecutor is overzealous, then ostensibly that's the will of the people who elected them. If not, they're free to vote them out of office during the next election in favor of someone who will act in accordance with their wishes. In extreme cases there is usually (always?) a process in place for elected officials to be recalled immediately and a special election held for their replacement. As a disclaimer, the above is representative of my understanding of US law; it's how I would explain what is, not what I believe should be.