The Problem with Lawyers

By Keith D. Rodebush, Contributor, US Daily Review.

Lawyers, geesh! The epitome of the love/hate relationship of individuals is manifested in our daily lives by the work of lawyers. What person has not heard a lawyer joke or opined about the damage lawyers do through frivolous lawsuits or seemingly evil defense of reprehensible people. Lawyers by their very training can take either side of an issue and argue just as vigorously for the virtuous as for the evil. Lawyers make a living out of contextualizing language and obfuscating the simple meaning of words in the English language. Who can forget Bill Clintons inexplicable statement that, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

One could wax eloquently for hours on all of the reasons that lawyers are the way they are and most could find reason behind arguments for and against their collective value to society. Suffice it to say, they are what they are. While it’s easy to impugn lawyers, when one is set upon by persons or government and harmed or robbed by either, we all want the best lawyer available to fight our cause. Therefore, please do not misinterpret my intent here today. I am not here to fashion lawyer’s style or training. I am simply stating that the very traits that make lawyers successful in a court of law are the same traits that allow tyrannical government to legitimize their subjugation of the American people. We hire lawyers for drafting legislation at our own peril and recent history proves it beyond any shadow of doubt.

It is incumbent on the American voter to realize that given two alternatives, one who is deft and shrewd in matters of law, and one who is committed and confident in matters of individual freedom, go with the latter every time. Those who would have government attempt to solve our problems are those that would complicate government to a point that its stated purpose is no longer legible. Government cannot solve problems without using force which itself begets a multitude of other problems, which of course requires more regulation and legislation and more parsing of language to justify intervention and more bureaucratic agencies…and the band plays on.

Thusly, depending on lawyers or judges as is the case with the Supreme Court to defend our Liberty is folly at best as I warned you in a previous blog post. Lawyers are trained to use precedent in order to buttress their argument, regardless of how shallow it may be. In other words, if a lawyer has a client that is clearly guilty, they may still win the case by supporting their argument with a plethora of previous court decisions, no matter how badly adjudicated those cases may have been. This is the means by which the Supreme Court has allowed the oppressive and unconstitutional expansion of federal government to a level that would cause violent revolution from our Founders if they were alive today.

Part of Chief Justice John Robert’s opinion in the case of ObamaTax lately was to quote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who stated, “[T]he rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act.” in the case of Blodgett v. Holden (1927). Understand, what this man is saying is that when the Supreme Court is faced with legislation that may be deemed either constitutional or not, their duty is to side with tyranny over liberty! Nothing could be further from their sworn duty as officers of the court whose oath demands they protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, which the primary goal thereof is the protection of individual liberty. Yet this precedent is cited almost 100 years later to defend the indefensible.

What better example could be had of the bilateral nature of lawyers than the yoga like interpretation by CJ Roberts that in the case of the Anti-Injunction Act ObamaTax is not a tax, but in the case of constitutionality it is a tax. It is and it isn’t. This is what the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court would have you believe. This man should be impeached immediately. His oath to defend the Constitution which means to defend our individual liberty was trampled upon by this opinion. It is reprehensible, and I don’t care how many past spurious court decisions he can quote from to justify it. All Americans should be offended by this decision. But more importantly, all Americans should understand the consequences of hiring public representatives that write such legislation in the first place. Look not to government to cure your ills lest you be set upon by the exponential ills of government itself.

Keith D. Rodebush is a Christian businessman, a writer and an armchair scholar. He has a Bachelor of Science in Architecture from the University of Arkansas. Keith is currently working on a novel and periodically writes at his blog “Ignarus Semino Dominatus”.

All opinions expressed on USDR are those of the author and not necessarily those of US Daily Review.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*