A Dysfunctional Lawyercracy in a Semi-functional Land
The United States of America had been created with an exclusive ideology that there must be three distinct and separate branches of government. The implementation of the Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches of government helped introduce an initially effective form of checks and balances in the governmental system. The role of each branch has their own areas of expertise and expected accountability, but none were to operate independent of the other, thereby limiting an absolute power by one of the branches over the other two.
The general function of the three branches of government are:
· Legislative Branch:
Responsible for writing the laws and appropriating funds.
· Judicial Branch
Responsible for interpreting the laws, ensuring a separate but equal government and protecting the people.
· Executive Branch
Responsible for enforcing the laws and authorizing spending.
Executive Branch: The President has limited authority and is primarily regulated by the Constitution of the United States of America. For most major decisions the President must consult and receive approval from Congress. Congress is the control value of the Executive office and so too is the United States Supreme Court.
Congress may not write laws that are unconstitutional, the Supreme Court is the check valve for Congress. Also, bills may come from either the United States Congress or the United States Senate. Action on bills are required to be reviewed in both chambers.
The Supreme Court may interpret the Constitution any way they desire, they have no check valve—each of the nine United States Supreme Court Justices have a lifetime appointment. The only time a supreme court justice undergoes scrutiny is once the individual has been nominated by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The United States of America has exceeded one million lawyers for the first time in 2003.( 1) The trend really isn’t that disturbing when we consider the amount of need we have for lawyers because of all the problems the lawyers had created, however, the trend is disturbing when we consider that there are 158 lawyers in the U. S. House of Representatives (36%), 53 in the Senate (53%) or combined total of 211 (39%) in both Houses of Congress.( 2)
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAWYER-LEGISLATORS IN THE SENATE: 60
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAWYER-LEGISLATORS IN THE HOUSE: 170
According to the Congressional Research Service 170 members of the House and 60 Senators are lawyers.
Out of a total of 435 U.S. Representatives and 100 Senators (535 total in Congress), lawyers comprise the biggest voting block of one type, making up 43% of Congress. Sixty percent of the U.S. Senate is lawyers. Enough said. 37.2% of the House of Representatives are lawyers.
There are 81 Republican lawyers in Congress who list “lawyer” as their profession. There are 123 Democrat lawyers in Congress that list “lawyer” as their profession. Some may have not told that they had a law degree or practiced law, because they were doing something else, e.g., doctor, industrialist, teacher, real estate agent/broker, etc. It seems that the medical and real estate professions are also heavily represented in Congress. [Source]
Although most Americans are probably not alarmed by the statistics because most Americans have come to accept lawyers as somewhat credible candidates for political office, current times indicate that the United States of America has turned into a Lawyercracy (Hafeman 1998).
What seems to be lacking is the knowledge that in order to be a member of the judiciary, you have to be a lawyer. You must be a lawyer to be the chief law enforcement officer in the county, state or at the national level. They are the Prosecuting Attorney or District Attorney and the Attorney General respectively. The President is the highest ranking member of the Executive Branch of Government, but too often the President is also a lawyer. In fact, because of some good work by “Ask Yahoo” people, it has been determined that 25 of the 42 individual Presidents had been lawyers.( 3)
Being an attorney is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact lawyers provide a valuable service to individuals that don’t know their way around the courtroom or the proper etiquette regarding the enormous amount of paper work for the most mundane thing. Lawyers have effectually built themselves an impenetrable empire that remains elusive and ominous to the general public. But, no matter how you feel about an attorney, they are a necessary commodity for individuals, businesses and corporations. Even though a large number of people are quite capable of writing a legal document, especially when given a template, most are not adequately acquainted with the required research and submission. Did you know that a Prosecuting Attorney may authorize an arrest warrant, but only a judge or magistrate can legally issue the arrest warrant?
The saturation of the government by lawyers has been occurring for generations. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as an example prefers to hire attorneys or accountants. The United States of America has become a highly complex matrix of laws, rules and regulations. Even in the world of academics the Criminal Justice Major is no longer a degree for the less than average athlete. Numerous courses are required for a student to graduate with a CJ Degree, including Criminal Procedure.
So, how do we know a lawyer has turned bad? The most significant indicator is when an attorney runs for office as a Democrat.
The Government Running Amuck
Where have we gone wrong; what have we become as a nation? When we turn our backs on some citizens in order to coddle other citizens through government edicts, soon no one will be exempt from the government edicts except the lawyers and the politicians who wrote the laws.
When our government is provided with unencumbered methodologies to trample on the rights of citizens, whether through collecting private communications data, issuing of search and seizure warrants on the media, obfuscating the citizens’ right to know the truth about terrorists’ attacks, or the condoned targeting of individuals and groups based on their political, ethnic, religious, and moral characteristics is bleeding the nation of our liberties. Chief Justice Roberts pretty much advised the nation on his decision regarding the atrocities of the Pelosi-Reid Democrats’ Health Care Plan that if we don’t like the way things are, we have elections to change our situation.
SMOKING: Picking on the unorganized
The state and national governments were permitted to sue the tobacco industry, impose additional tax on tobacco products and prohibit the tobacco industry from advertising. The states and federal government are reaping in billions of dollars and the attorneys aren’t being neglected either. The only ones that are now restricted from any significant settlement are the smokers, who are also heavily penalized for their simple pleasure, which in many instances cools their demeanor to prevent them for killing someone.
The states and national governments have reaped big rewards, but none of the money was put into a health care fund. It would be obvious that one of the first things the government should do with the money taken from the victimized smokers is to generously subsidize the insurance industry so smokers don’t have to pay the additional extra money that everyone seems to want from them. At least, there should be a catastrophic health care fund set up that is strictly for the smokers. Those that get ill from second hand smoke could access the fund if they could prove second hand smoke made them sick.
In 1989 I had successfully quit smoking altogether for over six months. While sitting at my dining room table working on some paperwork, the radio played in the background. An anti-smoking advertisement came over the airwaves and I was stricken with an insatiable urge to smoke—I jumped in my car and drove a local gas station and purchased a pack of Winston’s. A few years later I stopped smoking cigarettes for a couple of months and then began smoking little cigars. I was not able to afford the tax on a regular pack of cigarettes, so a new habit was launched. Although it is not suggested that an individual inhale cigar smoke, the smoker will always have some kickback. Just over a year ago I discovered the surgeon general’s warning on the cigars. A little too late for me. Now, if I become a victim of cancer, am I able to sue the federal government for failing to warn me in time?
The perils of second hand smoke is an implied link to asthma, but the ultimate cause of asthma is not really known. There have been significant increases in asthma cases in the United States and worldwide. Personally, I grew up with coal and wood burning furnaces, my parents, their friends and many of my relatives smoked and we burned leaded gasoline, but there were fewer cases of asthma. There is one of two things happening, either more people are exposed to products (foam pillows, artificial mattress stuffing, preservatives or excess salt as examples), or the human race is becoming a bunch of pussies. Because of the dominated Neo-Liberal influences in society, the latter may be the most accurate, but not necessarily the cause of asthma.
As I was sitting in the smoking section of a local Chinese restaurant, a patron came into the room and knelt beside his five or six year old son. He told the little Neo-Liberal, “This is where the smokers sit.” I quickly pulled out my little cigar, lit it, took a long draw and tilted my head back while expressing a great pleasure of the demonized tobacco product. Unfortunately I don’t have any children, otherwise I would have marched my kid in the other room and announced, “This is where the non-smokers sit, they are the leftwing kooks that have screwed up our world. In any other species, son, they would have all been killed and eaten by now.”
The Separation of Church and State
No one seems to recognize the irony of going through a judicial process to eliminate the rights of a group of individuals; effectively having the government dictate social and religious policy in the United States. The ACLU and other attorney-saturated organizations are utilizing the state to advance their cause by overriding the rights of the people, who by all civil liberties standards, should be protected from being the victims of state dictates. Democrats can speak from the pulpit in church, but the Catholics and other pro-life Christians may not even make an inclination of their support for a Party or a candidate.
In many ways, the Neo-Liberal movements of today are utilizing Nazi tactics in the name of social justice to neutralize the citizenry. Through prolonged desensitization by the media and pro-Nazi/pro-Communist organizations, the American people have become a group of visceral surrealists. On one side of the coin, these organizations have touted individual rights over the rights of the majority, but have not stepped up to the plate to defend other social injustices by their own kind or other individuals stricken by the perils of anti-religion zealots. As an example, a male Mormon who practices their religious dictates of polygamy are subject to the punishment doled out by the state. None of these so called civil rights groups jumped in and defended the practice by chanting their “separation of church and state” crap. It is only valid when there is a condemnation of the Christian religion, not the free exercise thereof. Even the Muslims are enjoying their minority status in the United States, for the time being anyway. Once the civil rights people learn that Muslim doctrine promotes morality and has close ties to the Jews and Christians, they too will be subdued by the whacked-out lefties.
Within the next decade, the civil rights activists will demand the removal of the offensive crucifixes from the tops of church steeples. The crucifix, like the movie, The Passion of The Christ, are offensive to non-Christians, particularly the atheists among us. As a result of the overwhelmingly prevalent passivity by an apathetic citizenry, the evil ones will be successful.
The Incredible, Non-credible Media
The political manifestations that have developed during the growth of the United States toward our alleged political maturity has been corrupted through the inappropriate usage of political orientations by the philosophically modern, yet archaic media. Usually, most individual journalists genuinely want to achieve some respectable degree of credibility, but through no fault of their own, they have been misled during their academic and professional careers. Perhaps an inability to remain unbiased is the result of the young, impressionable minds being indoctrinated with too much time in the public education system. The classroom experiences often result in producing accuracy-challenged journalists.
Media outlets that hire “Journalists” should ask one critical question, “Why do you want to be a journalist?” If the response is ever, “I want to make a difference.”, thank them for their time and give them a business card to the nearest seminary. The job of a journalist is not to make a difference, it is to report with indifference, providing objectively and fact-based sincerity.
We are only somewhat fortunate in the United States. We do have a few journalistic outlets that provide us with a balanced and untarnished observation of the news from around the world. However, as far as print media goes, we have our own Al Jezzera media. The most scrutinizing reader of news in American newspapers would probably consider the Associated Press (AP) as being hands-down the worst source of valid information in the Western Hemisphere. It is possible that only a government controlled newspaper reporter could go lower than the average AP reporter when it comes to an unprecedented failure in writing accurate and unbiased news articles. It is quite possible that more than 50% of the published AP articles are merely incompetent commentaries that contain very little journalistic value.
In a carefully construed opinion, one of the biggest violators of journalistic integrity is Peter Jennings (ABC News) who has few links to credibility, especially regarding the people and politics of the United States. If it is true that more Americans get their news from ABC News than anywhere else, that may very well explain the deepening of the national cesspool and should be considered a cry for alternative news. Other equally colorful journalistic misfits, based on opinion, is Dan Rather and the entire CBS anomaly. Immediately after airing the abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison by CBS (April 28, 2004), the beheadings in Iraq began in retaliation for the prisoner abuses. The Pentagon had made a news released on February 26, 2004 stating they were investigating prisoner abuse complaints at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq. CBS thought it appropriate to air the photographs and bring worldwide attention to what CBS construed as being the mismanaged war in Iraq. The anti-Bush campaign continued with forged documents regarding Lt. George W. Bush’s honorable service in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam conflict.
The Anti-God journalists, in alliance with their Neo-Liberal counterparts, are always quick to condemn any religious movement or organization. The pedophile scandals that involved Catholic priests hits the headlines every so often just to keep the public outraged. To get enough impact, the media had to go back more than thirty years of collective allegations to make the headlines seem more poignant. The unionization of other professions, like teaching and law enforcement, keeps the media from condemning those professions because of the occasional misguidance of a few bad apples; but if each sex scandal in these other professions were equally reported, with links to thirty-plus years of abuse, most Americans wouldn’t want their children to attend school or would refuse to stop for a police vehicle. A peculiar, secular manifestation is that little comfort is given to those expecting more from the reporters.
The degradation of journalist standards that comprise today’s media market-place is reflected in the ignorance of the citizenry. Unfortunately, assumptions never validated a journalist’s integrity nor did it help America’s complexion. Using assumptive analysis, employing individuals with poor reasoning skills and the overall lack of journalistic accountability has promoted the excessive political ambiguity that infects an entire society. The general journalistic laziness and the shallow media gene pool have lead to the near complete extinction of journalistic integrity.
FOX News has taken the lead in journalistic integrity, but unfortunately they’re only available via cable or satellite. While most networks have one token Moderate on their talk shows to speak on behalf of the Nation of Conservatives, they always seat a minimum of two Neo-Liberals to counterbalance the Moderate. All other networks also have leftwing hosts to moderate the talk shows. ABC’s This Week, for instance, is hosted by George Stephanopoulos, a defender of the Clinton Administration. George Will, a more-left-than-center commentator, is their usual token “balancer.” Mr. Will writes opinions for the Washington Post. The Washington Post could be considered another nemesis of truth and balance.
FOX News has been belittled by the Hollywood Elitists for being rightwing and often identified as the Bush Network. Subjective journalism is the obvious agenda of FOX News, but because they do make each show as fair and balanced as possible, they are often misaligned because it is well known that it takes three Liberals to outwit one Conservative. The Liberals are the most amusing in the circle of ideas and offer no sustainable dialogue. The most pleasurable and endearing characteristic of all the commentators on FOX News is their ability to ask the tough questions, regardless of which side of the political aisle the guests call home. By most observations, it is impossible for one beloved Liberal, Susan Estrich, to match wits with the beloved Ann Coulter. In any great debate, utilizing typical Neo-Liberal punches, Susan Estrich is seldom in sync with the questions being asked. Ann Coulter, along with numerous rightwing celebrities, will always answer the question and then explain her response in detail. Susan on the other-hand has to qualify any of her statements by attacking Conservatives before she ultimately doesn’t answer the question.
Gas Prices and the political influences
The chart below has two dramatic features. First is the rapid rise in gas prices after the Democrats took office in January 2007 and then the dramatic decline in prices just prior to the 2008 Presidential Election. Interesting.