A comparative study of the Basic Judge in the Afghanestan and US legal systems

The constitution is the supreme document in a country that regulates all affairs of the state. It is necessary the proper mechanism to be predicted to preserve this fundamental act and to contain possible threats against this national covenant and any action contrary to it is void. The predicted way to accomplish this is in the form of a concept called the "basic proceedings". In general, there are two ways in the proceedings: "political control" and "judicial control" and countries, for different political, historical and legal reasons, choose one of the above methods. In this paper, using descriptive-analytic research method it has been discussed on the similiar and different dimensions of the substantive process in Afghanistan and America and it has been concluded, despite the differences in method, that in both Afghanistan and in the United States, fundamental justice has been identified. Therefore, the main similarities between the Afghan and United States in fundamental justice are: Judicial proceedings, passive monitoring and lateral controlling. On the contrary, one of the most important differences is: the method of their examination, the manner of dealing with relevant issues, competent authorities to handle the matter that the possibility of the merger and unity of the basic proceedings of these two countries will be avoided. For example, in the United States the basic lawsuit is scattered, but focussed on Afghanistan.