Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 10/8/2007 2:52:48 PM EST
Serious question.

Almost by definition, lawyers are part of the judiciary.
This is supposed to be a separate branch of government.
In fact it has, by having its "officers" take the majority of the positions of power in the other two branches, taken control of the whole government.

This was seemingly the whole point of the (original) 13th amendment (link) which it is claimed was illegally removed from the constitution.

Discuss.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 2:54:57 PM EST
having people that have been trained in law and that understand it seems to make sense since they will be making laws.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 2:54:57 PM EST
A better solution is to put term limits on all offices.

Congressman: 2 terms.
Senator: 2 terms.

90% of your problems will go away after that. You will get far more people who truely represent their constituents than these career politicians.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 2:56:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By anjan9:
having people that have been trained in law and that understand it seems to make sense since they will be making laws.


Seems incestuous.
The government is supposed to be of the people, for the people. Not of the judiciary for the judiciary.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 2:59:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2007 3:09:06 PM EST by RV-1]

Originally Posted By anjan9:
having people that have been trained in law and that understand it seems to make sense since they will be making laws.


We've never needed lawyers. We've always needed Statesmen and haven't had a single one in nearly 150 years.

Modern Lawyers, being the glib-tongued weasels they are, have made themselves . . . . ah fuck it!

ETA: Modern lawyers, not to be confused with real lawyers pre-1900s
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:05:03 PM EST
As I recall, there were a few lawyers among the founding fathers. Bastards.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:06:56 PM EST
As said term limits
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:10:13 PM EST
I agree with term limits, but I see the same problem Boortz does. It would effectively take a choice away from the people. What if a Congressional district has an excellent representative and wants to keep him in office as long as possible. Is it right to take away the people's choice? Yet such limits would certainly push out necrotic flesh like Kennedy and Byrd...
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:19:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By 103:
I agree with term limits, but I see the same problem Boortz does. It would effectively take a choice away from the people. What if a Congressional district has an excellent representative and wants to keep him in office as long as possible. Is it right to take away the people's choice? Yet such limits would certainly push out necrotic flesh like Kennedy and Byrd...


I say when their approval numbers reach 10%, the Roman practice of decimation be utilized.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:22:58 PM EST
We have to many laws, so we need lawyers. Nevermind that we have to many laws due to lawyers. Did you know the U.S. has more than 20,000 gun laws. There should only be one, the Second Amendmant and the individaul states game regulations. Any more is wrong and oppressive.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:40:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By PhilipPeake: Discuss.
Lawyers are in 'gubment because most employers don't want to hire the ambulance-chasing bottom-feeding scum!
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:43:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paveway_:
A better solution is to put term limits on all offices.

Congressman: 2 terms. .22lr
Senator: 2 terms. .38



Opinions differ.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:45:57 PM EST
Seams silly to me whenever I learn that a representative is not a lawyer.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:46:59 PM EST
Your information about the original 13th Amendment is faulty, at best. It was not intended to bar lawyers from being in Congress or serving as President. It was also never illegally removed from the Constitution.

FYI: The Congress that proposed the original 13th Amendment you refer to, was comprised of a majority OF LAWYERS.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:49:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By 103:
I agree with term limits, but I see the same problem Boortz does. It would effectively take a choice away from the people. What if a Congressional district has an excellent representative and wants to keep him in office as long as possible. Is it right to take away the people's choice? Yet such limits would certainly push out necrotic flesh like Kennedy and Byrd...


Tough shit, the same could be said for Presidential elections, but we have term limits for a reason. The same people constantly in power is a BAD thing.

It is obvious career politicians care nothing but for their careers.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:50:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By 103:
I agree with term limits, but I see the same problem Boortz does. It would effectively take a choice away from the people. What if a Congressional district has an excellent representative and wants to keep him in office as long as possible. Is it right to take away the people's choice? Yet such limits would certainly push out necrotic flesh like Kennedy and Byrd...


If he or she is great enough to garner massive national support, there should be a Senate and House vote on whether to allow said person to run for office past the term limit.

It would require a 60% positive vote for him to be allowed extra terms.

If said person is good enough for the country to continue in office, he should have no problem being allowed to stay in.

Just my .02...
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:51:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By anjan9:
having people that have been trained in law and that understand it seems to make sense since they will be making laws.


Trouble is the good lawyers get rich being lawyers. The bad lawyers run for office.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:51:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paveway_:

Originally Posted By 103:
I agree with term limits, but I see the same problem Boortz does. It would effectively take a choice away from the people. What if a Congressional district has an excellent representative and wants to keep him in office as long as possible. Is it right to take away the people's choice? Yet such limits would certainly push out necrotic flesh like Kennedy and Byrd...


Tough shit, the same could be said for Presidential elections, but we have term limits for a reason. The same people constantly in power is a BAD thing.

It is obvious career politicians care nothing but for their careers.


That is funny because most of the people who led the Revolution, wrote the Constitution, and served in the first Congresses, were career politicians. I guess they did all that for nothing more than to advance their own careers.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:52:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By Paveway_:

Originally Posted By 103:
I agree with term limits, but I see the same problem Boortz does. It would effectively take a choice away from the people. What if a Congressional district has an excellent representative and wants to keep him in office as long as possible. Is it right to take away the people's choice? Yet such limits would certainly push out necrotic flesh like Kennedy and Byrd...


Tough shit, the same could be said for Presidential elections, but we have term limits for a reason. The same people constantly in power is a BAD thing.

It is obvious career politicians care nothing but for their careers.


That is funny because most of the people who led the Revolution, wrote the Constitution, and served in the first Congresses, were career politicians. I guess they did all that for nothing more than to advance their own careers.


BFD.

We live in a different world. Limiting the terms to which someone can serve violates no ones rights. If anything it ensures more people can have a chance to be in the government.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:52:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paveway_:

Originally Posted By 103:
I agree with term limits, but I see the same problem Boortz does. It would effectively take a choice away from the people. What if a Congressional district has an excellent representative and wants to keep him in office as long as possible. Is it right to take away the people's choice? Yet such limits would certainly push out necrotic flesh like Kennedy and Byrd...


Tough shit, the same could be said for Presidential elections, but we have term limits for a reason. The same people constantly in power is a BAD thing.

It is obvious career politicians care nothing but for their careers.


That's just ignorant and untrue. Some of our greatest statesmen were career politicians. I get disgusted 90% of the time with career politicians, but their getting elected is a right of the people is it not? I agree that representatives and (to a far lesser extent) senators should be cycled out, but if the people who elected them do not want to, such is their choice. It's called republicanism.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:54:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paveway_:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By Paveway_:

Originally Posted By 103:
I agree with term limits, but I see the same problem Boortz does. It would effectively take a choice away from the people. What if a Congressional district has an excellent representative and wants to keep him in office as long as possible. Is it right to take away the people's choice? Yet such limits would certainly push out necrotic flesh like Kennedy and Byrd...


Tough shit, the same could be said for Presidential elections, but we have term limits for a reason. The same people constantly in power is a BAD thing.

It is obvious career politicians care nothing but for their careers.


That is funny because most of the people who led the Revolution, wrote the Constitution, and served in the first Congresses, were career politicians. I guess they did all that for nothing more than to advance their own careers.


BFD.

We live in a different world. Limiting the terms to which someone can serve violates no ones rights. If anything it ensures more people can have a chance to be in the government.


That is patently untrue (the rights comment). It violates the rights of the people and the states, hence the need for a Constitutional amendment instead of USC to term limit the president.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 3:55:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paveway_:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By Paveway_:

Originally Posted By 103:
I agree with term limits, but I see the same problem Boortz does. It would effectively take a choice away from the people. What if a Congressional district has an excellent representative and wants to keep him in office as long as possible. Is it right to take away the people's choice? Yet such limits would certainly push out necrotic flesh like Kennedy and Byrd...


Tough shit, the same could be said for Presidential elections, but we have term limits for a reason. The same people constantly in power is a BAD thing.

It is obvious career politicians care nothing but for their careers.


That is funny because most of the people who led the Revolution, wrote the Constitution, and served in the first Congresses, were career politicians. I guess they did all that for nothing more than to advance their own careers.


BFD.

We live in a different world. Limiting the terms to which someone can serve violates no ones rights. If anything it ensures more people can have a chance to be in the government.


Not a student of history, eh?

Many at the time of the Founding also thought politicians were self-serivng thieves and locust.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 4:05:11 PM EST
Yes.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 4:26:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Your information about the original 13th Amendment is faulty, at best. It was not intended to bar lawyers from being in Congress or serving as President. It was also never illegally removed from the Constitution.

FYI: The Congress that proposed the original 13th Amendment you refer to, was comprised of a majority OF LAWYERS.


Did you actually read the link?
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 4:38:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2007 4:39:05 PM EST by 103]

Originally Posted By PhilipPeake:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Your information about the original 13th Amendment is faulty, at best. It was not intended to bar lawyers from being in Congress or serving as President. It was also never illegally removed from the Constitution.

FYI: The Congress that proposed the original 13th Amendment you refer to, was comprised of a majority OF LAWYERS.


Did you actually read the link?


Alright, class time.

First of all: "esquire" is an informal title most attorneys don't even use.
Second: judges DO NOT have to be lawyers or have any qualifications at all. It's just that most are and do. (Varies state by state and the Judiciary Act can be alered at any time)

Lastly, honor. What a load of crap. If such were the case, no one with a degree of any kind could be able to include it in his name: John Smith, BA = JAIL. And no government can exist without at least some sovereign immunity. Can you imagine all US Attorneys, prosecutors, soldiers, etc. being able to be held liable for any possible mistake they make? Government would cease to function. Lawyers have been a part of government since government was created. It is just a necessary evil, so to speak. It is how we maintain functionality of government and usability of law. If we had to rely solely on those who have no legal training, laws would make no sense and would not be consistent with our legal and political tradition. The common law would be destroyed and the judiciary would spend countless hours trying to make sense of it all.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 7:01:05 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2007 7:04:16 PM EST by dogrunner]
Bar association membership ought'a be an immediate disqualifer for holding public office.....I'm also convinced that the same thing might not be a bad idea in the case of insurance brokers as well!.....BUt hell, I'm just a reactionary hillbilly.

I honestly believe that a legislative body comprised of used car salesmen would be far preferable that one INFESTED with the former types.
Top Top