Lawyers in Government?, page 1

reply to post by Nightflyer28

---

Look at Bush, a non lawyer totally in violation of the most basic rules of the Constitution. A non lawyer run government can cause a host of step arounds the due process requirements necessary for a democracy.

But hey, if we are off to facism, no need for atty's in government at all. Better higher some black water guys to take charge.

reply to post by Nightflyer28

---

Star and Flag. Lawyers have traditionally been an easy target. Shakespeare once said, "first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" (Henry VI). Honestly however, lawyers are responsible for many things we take for granted, but I guess most people won't recognize that until they need one. Unfortunately, there are a lot of bad ones out there and that only adds to the mistrust of the profession as a whole.

As you say though, I would like my representative to have more than a cursory understanding of the laws, their implications, and the process by which they are upheld. That means a Lawyer in my book.

[edit on 14-8-2009 by Artephius Abraxas Helios]

Originally posted by Jeffesq
reply to post by Nightflyer28

---

Look at Bush, a non lawyer totally in violation of the most basic rules of the Constitution. A non lawyer run government can cause a host of step arounds the due process requirements necessary for a democracy.

Agreed.

True... plus, he managed to have half+ of Congress on his side, coupled with more secrecy and demands for loyalty than Nixon ever did, along with a full administration that was more than willing to go along.

On the other hand, Nixon didn't get away with Watergate, but thanks to WoodStein, he got busted.

That's one of my main concerns these days - investigative journalism is either subordinate to the demands of the newspaper, which is often asleep, lazy, scorned by political oponents crying foul about the 'liberal media', or subject to the interests of corporate management or advertisers (google or check on YouTube for a bit on Fox News requiring their own investigative team to not do a story or alter the results because the results led to a major advertiser).

I mean, there was plenty of evidence demonstrating that Bush had done tons of crooked stuff, but his people and pundits discounted and discredited it all.

That's why I think one of the worst things ever done was the ending of the Fairness Doctrine. Without good, honest debate between two or more opposing viewpoints, you get Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, etc. all pretty much feeding 'their' side a steady stream of their own propaganda without any opposition.

And yes, there's shows like Air America and so forth as well, but I'd rather have the debate and discussion. Sooner or later, the facts are squeezed out from the bull.

Hmmm...hate to re-post this once again...

The Original Thirteenth Amendment
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The original Thirteenth Amendment (no title of nobility), approved by 13 of the 17 states March 12, 1819 and thereby ratified, is the last proper draft of a de jure Amendment but is not recognized by the corporate (de facto) UNITED STATES.

The original 13th Amendment prohibits "Esquires" (Attorneys) from holding positions of public office.

Now...I wonder why our Founding Fathers would do such a thing???

Did they know something we don't know?

I suggest Y'all study up on the original 13th...as opposed to the "replaced" 13th and the 14th...actually neither are legal...nothing after the 12th...

[edit on 8/14/2009 by Hx3_1963]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

---

I do agree with that, the secret language of lawyers.. which I may add, is much less elegant than it was in the 1700's lol..

But of course being a lawyer does not make you a bad person .. and I honestly doubt any congress person or senator is writing their own laws. I imagine many of them come via priority mail in big envelopes from secure carriers from undisclosed legal offices of unnamed specific corporations with unspecified interest in it's passage... Then again, I may have watched one to many james bond movies..

If we elect people based on their morals and their integrity .. we wouldn't have the likes of Bush being elected, or fiends like Pelosi (she makes my skin crawl, that lady.. like.. if evil could form a physical self, it would look like her... or Cheney.. )

But anyways.. I think one of the biggest factors is that those who choose Law as a profession often seek the type of job being a Statesman is.. most people don't become doctors thinking "One day I would like to be a Senator".. so it could be an unintended side effect?

The point that matters though is the job doesn't define the person, only their actions do.. we are responsible for who we elect.. we don't HAVE to vote for the lawyers all the time.. but Americans are apathetic to politics and simply don't care.. so it's hardly surprising to see the country the way it is..

reply to post by Hx3_1963

---

Fascinating read! .. (still reading) .. I never subscribed to the "Corporate Government" theory, though minus that, the "original 13th amendment" is still an interesting read, though I wonder why they felt the need to prohibit esquires from holding public office? And did they mean the modern American term or the old British term.. we consider it legal practice, I believe the Brits considered it a social status?

reply to post by Rockpuck

---

But of course being a lawyer does not make you a bad person .. and I honestly doubt any congress person or senator is writing their own laws. I imagine many of them come via priority mail in big envelopes from secure carriers from undisclosed legal offices of unnamed specific corporations with unspecified interest in it's passage... Then again, I may have watched one to many james bond movies..

These are words I highly agree with friend Rockpuck a big star on those.

That is how the process typically works. I do know this for a fact. (A little non-partisan carrier pidgeon told me so)

I am thinking you might need to watch a couple more James Bond Movies!

Have they found a replacement for Sean Connery yet?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Hx3_1963

---

Fascinating read! .. (still reading) .. I never subscribed to the "Corporate Government" theory, though minus that, the "original 13th amendment" is still an interesting read, though I wonder why they felt the need to prohibit esquires from holding public office? And did they mean the modern American term or the old British term.. we consider it legal practice, I believe the Brits considered it a social status?

Please take no offence Rockpuck but as you might know there really was a time for a period after the War of 1812 that there was a backlash here in America against the Masonic movement. The Skull & Bones in part was founded by Russell at Yale as a protest to what he felt was a witch hunt and persecution against the Masonic movement and fraternal orders in general.

Starting right after the war of 1812 most of the founders were by that time all dead and a lot of the treaties and accords made with the English, Spanish, French, and Dutch corporate interests that they found they were bound to really alarmed the citizens and they felt it was a conspiracy on behalf of the Masons and the Esquires who in fact had noble title in the crown.

The same principal of not wanting a foreign born President is what prompted it. People became afraid that if you were a Mason you had secret loyalties and oaths to an other authority other than just the Government and that those might take precedent. The same with Lawyers and other fraternal orders. They felt if they could keep people out of office that had dual allegiances or hidden or secret dual agendas it would better gaurantee and safegaurd our constitutional principals.

Whether their fears at that time were well founded or not is a subject for debate, that those were the fears at the time and the events that resulted from those fears though is historical fact. It's basically not talked about and little known by most people who don't have a real passion for history but that is what led to the original 13th amendment.

Having read the actual treaties I can empathize with why people were concerned at the time.

I do believe that the founders were acting in a pragmatic way, a lot of concessions were made to ensure that property owners and creditors pre-revolution were protected from loss by the revolution.

The window of a year to settle accounts allowed for in the Treaty of Paris convinced most people that the European corporate and noblility influences would be out of America after that time, but of course that didn't happen and it didn't happen to the extent that it did cause alarm amongst the populace after the War of 1812.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

---

Meh, it wouldn't surprise you that there has been a backlash against Masonry ever since Masonry allowed Irish Catholics and English Protestants to drink Guinness at the same table.

First "third party" to ever form in the US was the Anti-Masonic party. Religious nutjobs. As a Mason and knowing Masonic history I am delighted when any conspiracy theory attaches it's self to a Masonic theory I know to be false... it makes it that much easier to dismiss the entire conspiracy as junk.

EDIT to add that in some cases the governments and public were right to fear the Free Masons.. the French Revolution for starters. And the American Revolution. There are even rumors that some of the enlightened movements in England were perpetuated by unknown Masonic publishers.. "Evil", maybe. If you're a King a England or France anyways..

[edit on 8/15/2009 by Rockpuck]

reply to post by Rockpuck

---

And I agree, that being a lawyer does not make you a bad person at all. Just as you already explained a lot of people become lawyers to become politicians. I actually had a story told to me about a very successful lawyer that decided to try his hand in politics. When the person asked him why you wanted to go into politics his answer was because he could make more money in politics than he could being a lawyer.

A few years later he caught back up with the guy and asked about his foray into the politic sphere and he dropped out, and the reasoning he gave was that it was a very dirty business that requires a lot of contacts to be successful and he couldn't stand Newt Gringrich(sp?),

reply to post by Nightflyer28

---

Well, you asked and I gave my reasoning, I'll simplify it a little more for you. I feel that any common person with at least a 9th grade education should be able to read and understand the law.

It's your choice to accept the reasoning or not. I'm not going to attempt to change your mind on the subject.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by Nightflyer28

---

Well, you asked and I gave my reasoning, I'll simplify it a little more for you. I feel that any common person with at least a 9th grade education should be able to read and understand the law.

Which would work if the only laws were don't kill, don't steal, don't speed and don't be a dick.

A 9th grader could understand that. But the real world is a lot more complex, so the laws are as well.

I mean, it's not like the Bill song from Schoolhouse Rock....

[edit on 8/15/2009 by Nightflyer28]

DEA is Investigating Montana State Legislators Over State Laws
  Posted 11 days ago with 59 member flags

US threatens Sweden with watch list sanctions if they don’t prosecute The Pirate Bay.
  Posted 6 days ago with 20 member flags

The CIA in Australia: America\'s Foreign Watergate
  Posted 1 days ago with 17 member flags

Who is really behind the birthers and what is their real motive?
  Posted 10 days ago with 11 member flags

ESF and Black op funding.
  Posted 9 days ago with 11 member flags

There is NO Media Bias in America
  Posted 9 days ago with 10 member flags

Medical Scientists & Doctors Finally Stand Up To The Feds: Suing Them For Spying
  Posted 12 days ago with 7 member flags

WW2 US mutiny in Australia by African-Americans soldiers uncovered
  Posted 1 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: