Why do we need lawyers to interpret the Constitution for us?

CPT Jack Durish — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:13:10 -0400

On Saturday, September 8, 1787, the Committee on Style was established at the Constitutional Convention. It consisted of Alexander Hamilton (NY), William Johnson (CT), Rufus King (MA), James Madison (VA), and Governor Morris (PA). They were the last committee to work on the draft that would later be approved by the Convention and ratified by the states. Their goal was to restate the various articles and provisions of the Constitution in plain language that could be understood by the average citizen without the need for legal expertise. In other words, the Constitution should say what it means and mean what it says. Every perversion of the Constitution that followed, especially during the 20th Century, the age of Progressivism, was justified through "interpretations" by legal "experts". Well, it seems that I've answered my own question, doesn't it?

Let's take an example: When has Congress ever attempted to establish religion? You go ahead and look. I'll wait... Well, never. Nor has any state government or any other government in this nation. However, the lawyers have "proven" that we can "infer" that governments have by allowing citizens to practice their religion or erect symbols of their religion in public places. Now, look at the clause that permits these practices: "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof [religion]", and the lawyers have successfully used government to prohibit that right. Now cue the lawyers who will arrive with all their court precedents and statutes and interpretations that pervert these simple concepts that everyone of us, who is honest, can read for ourselves. Only those with an agenda, an agenda to prevent the free exercise of religion, will side with the lawyers.

I went to law school and, after graduating, chose not to practice law. I enlisted in the Army instead. While I was gone, there was a revolution in the law. Caveat emptor was replaced with caveat vendor. Grounds for divorce were rendered null and void by no-fault divorce. Plus countless other fundamental changes. We may argue over the merits of these changes, but the simple fact remains that I would have had to go back to law school to relearn it. Thus, I was spared a life of chicanery. (Forgive me, I couldn't help myself)

Also, had I practiced law, I might have ended up in Congress. Fully 45% of the members of Congress are lawyers, so it's a possibility. What's really sad is that they write so many bad laws. Is there any more flagrant example of that than the Affordable Care Act which has been interpreted beyond recognition and understanding by bureaucrats?

Is it any wonder there are so many lawyer jokes and that many of them envision lawyers meeting with catastrophe?

Well, I started with a joke. "I have what it takes to take what you've got". We're not only talking about money and property. We can also include our beloved Constitution. They really have perverted it beyond recognition...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2018 9:19 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:19:41 -0400

So they can tell us what it says and they can do what they want without the limitations of the Constitution.

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Mar 14 at 2018 9:22 PM

Sgt Wayne Wood — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:22:48 -0400

Theoretically, that’s what the Supremes do. Lawyers merely argue the application of the law.

A distinction without a difference?

Response by LTJG Richard Bruce made Mar 14 at 2018 9:37 PM

LTJG Richard Bruce — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:37:57 -0400

There is no requirement to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court. 99% of the time cases heard are on appeal. But in same cases, the Supreme Court can be a trial court. Being a lawyer and a judge is expected to fulfill all possible duties.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 15 at 2018 12:42 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:42:21 -0400

Attorneys, partisan attorney/politicians, pervert the language with doublespeak to seize control. The Constitution is a set of rules governing the government and needs to be understood by citizens to ensure the bastards never pervert it for their own gain. The Constitution was written for we the people to govern the elected. We are meant to hold them accountable.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Mar 15 at 2018 6:58 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 06:58:21 -0400

Article III does not require a legal degree (or any degree) or really any specific qualifications. We have allowed the legal profession to dominate the courts. The courts are about administering justice which is a concept not always in alignment with the law.

Response by CPO Glenn Moss made Mar 15 at 2018 7:04 AM

CPO Glenn Moss — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:04:39 -0400

We don't need lawyers to interpret the Constitution for us, we need to study history for that.

What we need lawyers for is to interpret the various interpretations our government has come up with about the Constitution over the last two and a half centuries.

The Constitution itself is straight forward, written in clear language, with an incredibly well documented series of 85 essays openly published on it during the ratification process.

And then there's the clear historical record behind it, as well.

Even the Amendments are clearly worded, despite people's belief to the contrary on this or that instance. (And that includes both "The People" as well as "The Government".)

Response by PO1 Don Gulizia made Mar 15 at 2018 9:46 AM

PO1 Don Gulizia — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 09:46:53 -0400

The premise that was Freedom OF Religion has morphed into Freedom FROM Religion thanks to "advocate" lawyers and judges. Most can read and understand the Constitution, but the study of law makes it easier to manipulate said laws.

Response by LTC Orlando Illi made Mar 15 at 2018 11:12 AM

LTC Orlando Illi — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:12:17 -0400

I had been taught (in an interminable core English Literature Class) that Shakespeare did not mean this literally and that he was just frustrated at the amount of arguments and counter arguments that could ensue over common law cases. In any event, It does appear that we have evolved into a nation that will litigate anything (on both the left and the right) ad nauseum until their point is finally won.

Response by SFC Jim Ruether made Mar 15 at 2018 4:38 PM

SFC Jim Ruether — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:38:40 -0400

NO none at all! In fact there are many instances where we have attorney's now and don't really need them!