What would you think if your state legislature tried
to make a law mandating it a felony for lawyers to represent anyone charged
with a crime? You’d think that would be patently unconstitutional, right? Of
course it would be. Anyone charged with a crime enjoys a constitutional right
to employ a lawyer. If lawyers were banned by law from representing criminal defendants
that would plainly violate the accused’s constitutional rights.
The very idea of such a situation is unthinkable.
That’s because all lawmakers have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.
When they try to make laws which are plainly unconstitutional they are blatantly
violating their oath of office. Any lawmaker who tries to undermine the
Constitution in that fashion should be impeached and stripped of office.
Sadly, however, American lawmakers everywhere are constantly
trying to undermine the Constitution and our precious constitutional rights by
making laws which are plainly unconstitutional.
It is settled constitutional law in America, for
example, that a woman has the right to an abortion. Never-mind that say Oklahoma lawmakers;
they recently approved a bill
without debate making it a felony punishable with prison time and loss
of license for doctors to perform abortions.
So you see, it’s not
at all unthinkable to the ultra-right-wing religiously oriented lawmakers in
America. They have no respect for the Constitution unless it serves their
religious agenda.
Fortunately
they didn’t quite get away with it this time. Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, (a fervent anti-abortion advocate in her
own right), vetoed the bill because even she recognized that it was brazenly
unconstitutional. State
Sen. Ervin Yen, the only doctor in the Senate and also a Republican described
the legislation as “insane” and voted against it.
My prediction, however, is that those same miscreant
lawmakers will keep their offices and continue right on flouting the
Constitution in Oklahoma.
Has there been some major ruling since Planned Parenthood v. Casey? That ruling said the state could regulate or proscribe abortion after the point of "viability."
ReplyDeleteWell, even Roe v Wade allowed some restrictions, yes, but that's a far cry from attempting to criminalize all abortions.
DeleteYes, I know -- I was just wondering if I've missed anything on where the "settled" point is. Some people treat it as being on demand up to point of birth, and that seems to be the de facto status, but legally I don't know if anything has changed since Casey and wondered if you did.
DeleteYou do not have a right to an "attorney" or "lawyer," you have a right to "counsel."
ReplyDeleteLawyers have turned that on it's head to forcibly insert themselves in that capacity, and public education sees to it everyone believes this is "the law."
The courts do their bit by establishing in their rules that one must be licensed by the BAR or otherwise a sworn "officer of the court" to act in the capacity of counsel. That is clear conflict of interest, except the rules say it's not. Ergo the rules are in error, but one must know this and assert their proper right to assistance of counsel in order to have equal footing in the courts.
It has been suggested that anyone hiring "representation" is in fact absent from the court and is being dealt with as an incompetent third party, a ward of the state. You do not have any rights in that capacity.
I won't belabour it here, but the point arises that "the law" as generally considered (statutes, regulations etc) are inapplicable upon any free man or woman. In order to truly be "Law," it must be simple, comprehensible and attainable by the one charged with whatever transgression. Federal law is not MY law. I made this clear in filings with the US supreme court. They didn't disagree.
I read a supreme court case once where a justice opined that one had to "fight, fight, fight!" for their rights, lest they have none.
I have put this into practice. I "counselled" my wife after insisting on it in a fed court, it made all the difference in the outcome. A lawyer or other "officer of the court" would have sold her rights down the river and charged her dearly for it.
I'd welcome outlawing lawyers in matters of state force initiated against flesh and blood living people. (state initiated force against free people is unconstitutional btw) You'd still be free to have one assist you, if you were foolish enough to trust one. But the state should not be allowed to force one down your throat.
There should be no cost to any accused as well, but that's another rant.
True and proper assistance of counsel is as key as fully informed juries, more important if the facts be known, to regaining the right hand of justice in this land.
Why don't you tell us what you really think, Cat?
ReplyDeleteI read your blog frequently, and forward your writing to others to read on occasion.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate your perspectives and insights, and your writing is concise and conveys the content clearly and unambiguously. I wish I had your skills.
I applaud your bravery as well. I would imagine you take some heat from time to time.
I thank you for all the time and effort maintaining a blog like this must consume.
As for my post, all I know is this perspective worked for me in fed court. I was originally misled into believing there is a "common law" available, hidden under the radar in the courts.
What I eventually exerted is the Natural Law; we're born free, there's no involuntary servitude, (13th amendment) one must voluntarily agree to jurisdiction under full disclosure (Article 1 and 14th amendment) i.e. the matter of political jurisdiction, which overlies all others.
I don't know why I posted other I had the time this AM and perhaps seeing your example of outlawing having a lawyer prompted memories of my 12 year ordeal and how I finally found peace.
Apologies if I insulted anyone.
Keep up the great work.
Thanks for your kind words. I think we can both agree that the legal system isn't perfect.
DeleteThe legal system turned out to be much better than I expected, in a most unexpected way.
ReplyDeleteKudos for engaging as effectively as you do without being paralysed by the numbed silence of the larger part of our society.
I tried my hand at journalistic advocacy for a time many years ago. Disillusionment consumed the better half of my life before self preservation (lit by a healthy dose of intervention) returned, to literally save my life at the last minute.
Or; "how do you do that?!" I reiterate; I wish I possessed your communication skills. One tenth thereof I would consider a blessing.