A Constitutional Amendment Banning Lawyers From Public Office

By Gosta Lovgren gosta@exit109.com

What follows is a case to Amend the Constitution
to Prohibit Lawyers from holding elective public office.

The Amendment shall read:

No Person who holds, or has held, a license to practice law; nor any person who has represented any entity (other than himself) in a court of law in these United States, may be elected to any public office.

The rationale for such extreme action is as follows:

I have full confidence in my fellow (non-lawyer) citizens to maintain a system that will meet our needs as well (or better) as our current one had up until the last 30 years or so, about when the legal profession proliferated uncontrollably and the ENTITY that is the legal profession began tweaking the system to protect itself via legislation.

I find it helpful to think of the legal community as a Living Organism (An organism's highest duty is to survive) where the individual cells go about doing their own thing and are not (necessarily) aware of the survival purpose of the Organism or how it manipulates its environment for its own purpose. Nor do they see their contribution to that manipulation or how it may damage others outside their environment.

Incidentally, the "Organism Theory" (OT as I call it) works well to explain bureaucracies and other seemingly senseless or contradictory ENTITIES. I always got bogged down trying to make sense of them until I came up with the OT. I was focusing on the individual parts and missing "The Big Picture".

(Following are NOT reasons to Constitutionally curtail the power of lawyers but are particular bugs to me.)

  • The Lawyers absolute predilection to avoid and deny any responsibility for their clients at any cost.

    • No one is allowed to tell the truth right up front (if ever) for fear of making his situation worse. The car manufacturer can't say his braking system was faulty because then the lawyers will exact even more punishment. They have to drag it out as long as they can hoping to wear the other side down to a lesser settlement (all the time billing hours to each side).

      Many many examples of this behavior (this may not have been even a good one). It really really galls me. They have, by example, set the standard for avoidance of liability far outside the courtroom.

      • "My child came up wrong because the government didn't provide proper day care."

      • "We have civil unrest because whitey takes advantage of the underclass."

      • "I was abused as a child and/or came from a dysfunctional family."

      • "It's not my fault because ...."

      • And whose to say any of the above are wrong. After all that's what the rules (rulers) tell us every day. "DO NOT under any circumstances admit ANY responsibility for ANY action. I'll get you a better deal."

  • The fallacy of "Defending You to the Death"

    • One thing not generally known, nor would lawyers admit to, but the absolutely last thing a lawyer will do is go to court (especially in civil cases). They will generate ALL MANNER of rationale, delays and pressure to keep that from happening. The reason is: if they have to go to court, there is a very real chance they could lose. (And it keeps the clock running). By forcing a settlement (no matter how egregious for one side or the other), both sides come out claiming to be winners. Absolute fact.

    • The Judge is almost certainly pressuring for a "settlement". He's already got a clogged calendar and and scarce resources. Every case he can get to settle is one less the system has to deal with. (Note - in NJ, less than 8% of civil cases ever make it to court, much less trial.)

    • The lawyer is only dealing with you ONCE. He is dealing with the judge and the opposing lawyer often. If he takes a particularly hard stance on your behalf, he knows he's going to pay the price later on down the road. Simple logic - "If you give me a break on this one, I'll give you a break on the next one."

      How it works out for you depends on whether you are the "breakee" or the "breaker" this time. Tell me again how that hasn't led to abuses in the system.

    In Conclusion

    Obviously this amendment would never make it through the current Amendment Process (unless I were King of course). There really is no hope but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

    This isn't meant to limit the amount of lawyers in society, only the pervasiveness of their influence.

    I believe our government is heading for collapse just by virtue of its inexorable growth. Every year 1/2% of the population on average moves from the private sector to the public sector. It's my understanding that it stands now somewhere around 65% Public (Federal, State, County, Local) & 35% Private. And a pretty significant portion of the private sector is dependent on the public (Defense contractors, paper manufacturers, etc.) . At what point the Private sector can no longer produce enough to support the Public, I don't know. I thought that 25 years ago when the Public crossed the 50% line we were pretty close then, but obviously I was wrong. Maybe we can go all the way to 95% (where the Soviet Union was when it collapsed).

    And when the collapse comes and we have to start all over again we can get to add the Lawyer Amendment.

    This document is (c) Copyrighted by G. H. Lovgren. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part without this copyright notice.