Thoughtful point of view:
The Democrat Party has become the Lawyers' Party. Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are
lawyers. John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for
president, is a lawyer, and so is his wife, Elizabeth. Every Democrat
nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not
graduate). Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976,
except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer.
The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President
Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen. The leaders of the
Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and, Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.
Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford,
who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican
nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in
1976. The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real
work. The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and
scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the
sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.
The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and
services that people want, as the enemies of America . And, so we
have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers' Party, grow.
Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies,
oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains,
large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.
This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the
eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing
their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to
have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate
courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.
Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an
awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers
begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become 'adverse parties' of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic
that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.
Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial
decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all
parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and
lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and
unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president
is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and
the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution
as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the
lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in
America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to
hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.
We cannot expect the Lawyers' Party to provide real change, real
reform, or real hope in America . Most Americans know that a
republic in which every major government action must be blessed by
nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most
Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.
Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to
our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths
of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps
Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power
will only make our problems worse.
The Democrat Party has become the Lawyers' Party. Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are
lawyers. John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for
president, is a lawyer, and so is his wife, Elizabeth. Every Democrat
nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not
graduate). Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976,
except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer.
The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President
Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen. The leaders of the
Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and, Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.
Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford,
who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican
nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in
1976. The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real
work. The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and
scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the
sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.
The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and
services that people want, as the enemies of America . And, so we
have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers' Party, grow.
Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies,
oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains,
large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.
This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the
eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing
their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to
have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate
courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.
Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an
awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers
begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become 'adverse parties' of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic
that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.
Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial
decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all
parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and
lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and
unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president
is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and
the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution
as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the
lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in
America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to
hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.
We cannot expect the Lawyers' Party to provide real change, real
reform, or real hope in America . Most Americans know that a
republic in which every major government action must be blessed by
nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most
Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.
Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to
our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths
of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps
Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power
will only make our problems worse.
z
23 comments:
Awesome post!!!
.... and to make things even worse: About 80% of the members of congress (both House and Senate) are lawyers.
Mr.Z
If you are charged with writing law
than being a lawyer helps.
As a non lawyer who writes administrative law decisions it is
a disadvantage, My boss and I had to
have a ten minute discussion over what the impact of something not being covered in the regulations means.
This may sound funny but my interpretation was it hasn't been decided. The official end of it was
if it is not expressly covered in the regulations it is illegal.
like the story alluded to lawyers love to take from what others have earned!!! no surprise liberalism lives by the same creed!!
That's really fascinating,z! I used to work with a rabid leftie who was studying law. I think he had a vision of how he would 'make' people do 'the right thing'. The law schools probably churn them out too since the courtroom is the seat of great power in a nation.
The good news is that one can always tell when a lawyer is lying: his or her lips are moving.
Beak ... what you wrote is disturbing. If it is not expressly covered in "regulations," then it is LEGAL. Think Tenth Amendment.
Aurora! "Make people do the right thing". That is SO well said...seems like liberalism defined to me.
LAWS laws laws......wear a helmet, don't smoke inside, make it illegal to include transfats, make a law where the rich must pay the poor, make a law that God has to go from the public place, make a law that people who spill hot coffee can sue because it's hot ...
on and on and on.
One could argue wearing a helmet's good for you, but a LAW? Did we stop THINKING?
Still, since common sense is going away by the minute (is it because we have laws that take its place?), maybe we DO need LAWS LAWS LAWS!?
Since faith-based anything is being taken away day by day, maybe we DO need laws telling people to give to the poor, feed the needy?
Scary times. It's time to stop being lazy and LIVE wisely.....we don't NEEED more laws. In France, I remember walking past a small construction hole in the street that had one piece of tape over it.."Voila...be careful and don't fall in"!...no yards of yellow tape, no big postings warning anybody of anything, and i thought "They must be smarter people here..there's a hole, who'd FALL into it? Why do we need LAWS and protective SIGNS all over it in America?" Another time, I was at a resturant with VERY steep steps down to the bathroom. I got back to our table and said "If that staircase was in America, there'd be a table with a LAWYER sitting there at the bottom waiting for someone to fall down the steps"
We need LAWS because of lawsuits ftom someone stupid enough to fall INTO a hole.
grrr!!
mustang, but how does the Tenth work? ANything not
"delegated" or "prohibited" is reserved for the people? Anything not written down is allowed? sounds like mayhem to me.. This is an interesting point...help me out here.....but I understand what you mean in relation to Beaker's situation...sounds awful to think 'anything not regulated is ILLEGAL'.....
I mean, I wish we had LESS LAWS but........?
As I understand the 10th Amendment, federal authority is limited to what is expressly given to them in the exact text of the Constitution. Any not covered by the Constitution is reserved to the states who have the option of legislating on it or allowing the individual to decide personally on the issue.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
How else can it possibly be interpreted?
I keep looking for the day when we get back to "government of the people, for the people, and by the people."
It's a shame when judges legislate from the bench. That is your end result of too many lawyers writing your laws.
All lawyers are good for is obfuscation. We wouldn't need lawyers to write laws preventing loopholes if it weren't for lawyers exploiting loopholes.
On the other hand, that we are "A Nation of Laws" is more often than not trumpeted as an exceptional Good.
Perhaps it's a matter of "Too many cooks spoiling the broth."
Z ...
“Sounds like mayhem to me.” Thomas Jefferson instructed us, “He who governs least, governs best.” Our first president admonished, “Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” We should always assume that no entity has a better interest in acceptable behavior than the people themselves do. Now of course, there is another point of view, as reflected in Beak’s statement. It is that the people are not competent to govern their own behavior; the government must set down rules and regulations so that there can be no mistake about who, in the final analysis, is in charge of the people. The libertarian in me resists this attitude … it is why I oppose with all my ability, the socialist mindset. Many government rules are innocuous, and these fool people into believing that government has the interests of the people at the foremost of every rule. I disagree. The primary interest of government is the maintenance of government. Indeed, government is a fearful master … and I for one refuse to be enslaved.
Hi Z. Although the town I live closest to is small, there are four lawyers in it. Are you surprised to learn they're all Democrats? No? I didn't think so! LOL!
Papa Frank is right. This is an awesome post!
Gayle, HI!
What's the old joke I've heard..something about how the small town had no lawsuits UNTIL there were TWO LAWYERS in that town? Obviously, two Dems!! RIGHT!
Mustang, thanks..but Beak does immigration work and you do need some rules...he can't make up as he goes; that's my concern.
I'm all over your points, believe me...in general. But as far as Beak's situation?
Civilized societies require laws that meet the needs of society, not government. I’m not arguing with Beak … he is a friend and I respect his point of view. My question originates from my training … which is that we must obey the written laws and regulations, and that there is no such thing as an obligatory “unwritten” law or policy. When we have warehouses full of laws that do not seem to work for the American people, we ought to ask why. Take for example that horrendous case in California, where an identified illegal alien murdered a father and both of his sons because the federal government allows the existence of sanctuary cities. How did those laws benefit our society? Thus, rather than relying on unwritten restrictions … could someone please start writing down responsible guarantees for the safety of our society?
thanks, Mustang...excellent points. I see what you mean.
Also, I'm waiting for a new post from YOU...we're READY!!
When laws are not based on what-we-once-all-agreed was Common Sense and Basic Decency (The Golden Rule, The Beatitudes The Sermon in the Mount and the Decalogue), we should not respect them.
One of the thing that is terribly wrong in our society today is the way bureaucratic restrictions and political correctness make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for any employee to show initiative or act with spontaneity. Working for a bureaucracy is like the spiritual equivalent of being caught in a lucite cube. You can't move, you can't breathe, you can't ACT–––you an only be moved around like an OBJECT at someone else's behest. You are on display, but you've been reduced to non-personhood.
This is true as much in large corporate structures as it is in government.
The Death of Individualism is the Central Tragedy of Modern Life. Most people are forced to work in a DEHUMANIZING atmosphere.
HORRIFYING!
~ FreeThinke
Mustang in our cases the regs cover our internal procedures. Anything beyond the regs is illegal.
Great post, Z!
I never realized just how many of our elected officials were lawyers.
The problem is, lawyers will excuse and justify anything if it's not illegal.
Morality, ethics, and common sense sure take a beating with this kind of thinking.
Pris
z, I finally got to reading this. Great post!
Post a Comment