Lawyers in Government?

I've noticed more than a few comments here and there on ATS saying that lawyers shouldn't be allowed in government, words to that effect.

I can't help wondering why.

Maybe I missed something, but it seems to me that, given that Congress in particular and government in general requires more than a nodding familiarity with the law - hell, Congress writes our laws - you'd want at least some of them to be professional lawyers, so there's a reasonable chance that they'll be writing laws that won't be found unconstitutional the first time the law is questioned.

I checked around online, and as it happens, a good number of politicians throughout our history have been lawyers. Lincoln was a lawyer. 35 of the 55 Founders were lawyers.

Government writes and enforces the law. So what's the big objection to lawyers in government?

It is lawyers that are more times than not lobbyist that work with the lawyers that hold elected positions to rewrite existing laws that limit the power of corporations.... Having a law degree and passing a board exam amounts to being a license to lie, deceive, make a lot of money and legally hide how it all was done.

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]

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.

My opposition against having lawyers in elected government positions is because they write in a language called "legalese", what ends up happening is common folks can't understand the laws as they are written and end up getting in trouble for stuff because some lawyer wrote it in a way that only lawyers could understand.

The other reason for it is because through the use of legalese they can write legislation that nobody understands, like I mentioned up above, but it creates loopholes for their buddies and the likes.

It is better for everybody if lawyers are not allowed in elected government positions.

Lawyers are no less or more qualified to govern than anyone else.

However, as a group, they benefit from a special degree of communicative finesse that makes it nearly impossible not to manifest itself in the practice.

Also, they are generally trained as elites. Much like Doctors.

This of course is not universally true, but it is prevalent enough to have contributed to the trend of the congressional membership culturally migrating away from the common people (as a 'caste') as time progresses.

Media, which profits from the production of spectacles, feeds into the dynamic, glamorizing anything that 'sells.'

Finance, the perpetual industry of exploitation, neatly enables the ugliest manifestation of abuse possible.

Further, career politicians have, as a profession, a very peculiar lifestyle and career dynamic. It has to do with notoriety and relevance.

Such things shape our political landscape, although in and of themselves, we are NOT empowered to address them....

There are more dynamics than political ideologies involved in what has happened to our government. If we fail to recognize and address them, the exploit remains.

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

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]

Outstanding idea if you promote this type of logic...here are some other similiar suggestions.

Only Criminals should be Police Officers...after all they understand crime better than anyone!

Only Convicts should be jailers...after all they understand the penal system better than anyone.

Only Nascar Officials...should determine highway safety standards and speed limits, after all they understand driving better than anyone.

Only Poachers...should be game wardens after all they understand hunting better than anyone

Only Pedophiles should be school teachers...after all no one loves kids more!

Only sick people should be doctors and nurses...after all they know what it is to be sick!

Only lunatics should work in the mental health field...after all they know what crazy is!

Yes Original Poster you are on to a brilliant idea here!

Lets keep thinking along these lines and transform society the way it should be!

Great job!

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

---

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?

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]

One thing... it wasn't the Founders. 35 of them were layers or judges, like I said before. And from what I read, this thing was submitted in 1810. A little late, Founder-wise...



I'd like to know what your reasoning is for opposing the 14th.

It's basically about citizenship, due process, equal protection, etc. Civil rights, ending slavery, making sure Federal laws apply equally to the States...

I don't have a problem with this.

And what makes you think nothing after the 12th is legal?

So? It's called precision. Scientists write using terms most people haven't even heard of. Hardly an excuse for an indictment of scientists.



Still not seeing a convincing argument here.

Sarcasm notwithstanding, I have to wonder if you actually took a moment to think about what you wrote, or were you pretty much running on automatic?

While it is an impressive display of illogic - I have never seen so many flawed arguments all at once - other than that, it doesn't have much more going for it.

I said that given that Congress writes our laws, we should have at least a decent percentage who are lawyers.

Where you got the following reasoning from, I have hardly a clue... although if I had to guess, I'd say from a region somewhere in a location opposite that of the brain... XD

And to support your reasoning, you said...



Anyone except the police, detectives, criminologists... you know, people who've studied all sorts of cases and methods, so they know more about crime than the average idiot who steals a car around 4 am, goes zinging off chugging Crown Royal, and manages to crash it into another parked car mere minutes later.



Except for guards, wardens, police.... people who actually work there, rather than just sitting in a cell, working out, and whatever else convicts do....



Which would be helpful if Nascar had anything to do with either of those things.



Except that game wardens enforce laws about hunting, fishing, etc, so they don't need to know how to hunt, they just need to know the laws about what not to hunt.



Which has nothing to do with teaching... which teachers are trained in.



But they don't know how to help sick people get well.



But psychiatrists also know crazy.... and they know how to diagnose what kind it is and how to treat it, instead of just arguing with their three favorite invisible friends.

I have to assume this was ultra-tongue in cheek, because no one could possibly think this is a good argument.

[edit on 8/15/2009 by Nightflyer28]

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.

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]