Agreed. Doctors deserve respect because of the grueling training they endure to get to where they are---making us wait out in the lobby. And obviously cops are no better than we are, so why should they pack guns or arrest people? The judge you go before---picked outy of a line-up behind the Safeway store.

Yep. No special status will fix all of us up---or finish us.

__________________
Delivering tasty bite-sized Clues to liberals since 1965.

duplicate post

No, it's not. If you'll actually read the first link you'll understand the issue.

I do need to be clearer though - this is not about doing away with classes - it's about doing away with the idea of superior status based on title - that somebody should have a SPECIAL STATUS PROTECTED BY THE FORCE OF GOVERNMENT - which would obviously lead to an infringement of EQUAL INALIENABLE RIGHTS.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Training is not a title of nobility.

Everyone has the right to own a gun, and even to make citizen's arrests.

You guys still are doing a lot of typing, but not a lot of reading. As for the judges:

http://w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-09.html

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Oh, I've read. The argument that the "Esquire" some lawyers use(d) as an honorific equates to a title of nobility as envisioned by the never-passed 13th Amendment is both irrelevant and deeply silly.

What I see is a bunch of people deeply hostile to the legal system because it doesn't rule the way they think it should. Waah.

Are there too many laws on the books? Yes. Lawyers and bureaucrats and politicians are constantly trying to justify their existence. Red tape and unnecessary laws should be fought. Sensible legal reforms make sense.

Does that lead me to the conclusion that lawyers should be banned from holding office? No.

Does the fact that some judges commit crimes prove the entire judiciary is corrupt? No. It proves that judges are human just like the rest of us. A certain percentage of them will break the law, just as a certain percentage of carpenters, police and fishermen will break the law. To prove systemwide corruption, you'd have to prove that a significant minority of judges break the law or otherwise let corruption influence their rulings.

__________________
Man up.

The Founding Fathers were against a titled nobility based on birth (i.e., unearned nobility); however, the Founding Fathers had nothing against a timocracy (rule by the most excellent, excellence being based on individual accomplishment). The Juris Doctorate is not a title of nobility, by the way; it is a degree title.

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University of Seattle, 1993

Sorry, but I don't think you did read it.

What should be ruled on is the law and the evidence. If this doesn't happen, IT'S A BIG DEAL. If you were on trial, do you want the judge to ignore material facts? Would that be fun for you? And to then have the judge immune from prosecution if he or she wrongs you? Would that be fun too? Kid, you have no real world experience. Your biggest crisis up to this point has probably been your graduation exam. You crack me up.

If the majority of office holders are lawyers - as has always been the case in the country, how do you perceive they'll ever cut down on the complexity of the legal system, since they've always profited from it?

But it does prove judicial immunity should be done away with.

Bogus argument again, pup. Carpenters and fisherman don't have the power to destroy the lives of innocent people and easily get away with it if they subvert the law.

And that is probably very well be provable, but it would take a lot of time and research - it would equate to a full time job. After my experiences in the legal "industry" - I'm quite aware that the majority of wrongdoing is never exposed to the public.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

I see you didn't read the complete link either...

http://w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-01.html

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

You are utterly ignorant! Do you really expect me to believe that out of 435 Represntatives and 100 Senators, only 1 would give a rip about constitutionality and the other 534 could care less? Why? Any Congressman (or Congresswoman) in favor of a particular law should care about constitutionality. After all, it takes a very long process to get a bill to become law. First, you draw up a bill. Second, the Speaker of the House (or President of the Senate) assigns it to a committee (hopefully, an actually relevant committee that's in favor of your bill). Third, you get a buddy in the opposite house of Congress to introduce the bill there, where it follows a similar process. Fourth, if the committee approves, the bill comes out of committee where it is debated and possibly amended. Fifth, it is voted upon, and the House sponsor needs to round up at least 218 votes (including him/herself) and the Senate sponsor needs to round up 51 votes (including him/herself). Sixth, if passed in both houses, it goes to a joint committee for ironing out of differences between the two bills. Seventh, it goes to the President to sign or veto. Eighth, if the President vetoes the bill, the ball is back in Congress' court, so to speak, and this time the bill needs a two-thirds majority in both houses, i.e., 290 in the House and 67 in the Senate. After all that, do you really think that Congressmen/women would write up laws that were deliberately unconstitutional, knowing that (step nine) the Supreme Court would just strike down said laws and the process would have to start all over again? If they were lawyers, being aware of constitutionality questions, no, they would not! But, by banning lawyers from Congress, you will almost assuredly invite a bunch of unconstitutional laws because non-lawyer legislators would simply neither know nor care about constitutional questions.

BTW - Are you seriously suggesting having non-lawyers serve as judges, prosecutors, and public defenders?

NO THANKS ON YOUR DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIT!!!

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University of Seattle, 1993

The amendment was never passed; if it had been, the only way to have gotten rid of it would have been by a new amendment repealing the old amendment, as was the case with the prohibition amendments.

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University of Seattle, 1993