What is Digg?23 Comments
- looking4aparty, on 11/24/2007, -1/+20Terrific post on the need for lawyers around the nation to defend the constitution.
- bobschacht, on 11/24/2007, -1/+15The lawyers in the streets in Pakistan remind us that lawyers have a duty to something more than selling themselves to the highest bidder. It is good to hear the lawyer's conscience speaking out!
- romistrub, on 11/24/2007, -0/+10I always thought of lawyers in a practical sense: those who know how to form arguments based on the law to get you what you want. However, I now see that there is a lot of merit to viewing lawyers in a philosophical sense: someone whose job it is to analyze, interpret, and in the end, defend the rule of law. Surely they know more than most about how America is affected by the laws that her politicians enact. Respect++
- jeffiek, on 11/24/2007, -2/+8Gee, it's nice to see support for the Constitution when support is popular.
How 'bout some support when it's not popular? Law is law, you can't call it law when you pick and choose.
Cite the authorization for the Federal Department of Education.
Cite the authorization for the Federal Reserve System.
The authorization to tax is there, but where is the authorization to use that money to coerce states into enacting laws? Laws that the federal government isn't authorized to enact? (highway funds in exchange for speed limits for example)
Cite the authorization to outlaw marijuana? (oops - that's a popular one, but I don't get to pick and choose either)
Americans have a long way to go before they learn what the Constitution means. But I see progress. I can only hope. - 206Bones, on 11/24/2007, -2/+7Now there's a reason for Thanksgiving! Thank you, Mario Cuomo (and looseheadprop) and the Lady of the Law.
- dellis, on 11/24/2007, -0/+4Article 1, Section 8 states:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The "provide for ... general Welfare" clause is a blanket statement that can be used to justify just about anything, education, or outlawing marijuana.
Fed Reserve is likely under the Commerce Clause: " Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
The states are given the option to not take fed. gov't handouts but the handouts can have strings attached. It is the same as me saying, "I will give you $1000, but only if you use it to improve your house." You get a benefit, but you are limited to how you can use it. There is no coercion in either case. Coerce, from the Oxford dictionary is defined as to persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats. THe Fed does not use force or threats, there is just a limitation to the use of the funds. - inactive, on 11/24/2007, -1/+5Not to be a dick, but I think the author of this digg thread should look up "flaunt", look up "flout", reread his description of the article and decide which word he would choose to use given the chance to write it again.
- ryalslawfirm, on 11/24/2007, -0/+4Let me hip you guys (and gals... though this is digg, so let's be realistic here) to a few things that lawyers in this country face. I'll leave you to consider what it all means in the context of the issues raised by this story.
1. Ignorance.
a. Ignorance about law and politics: Lawyers are the stewards of the fine details and complex matrix of contingencies / exigencies involved in making, interpreting and enforcing law, but the people in our democracy (at least ostensibly) determine the agenda and the identities of the lawmakers. I am consistently surprised at how little people understand about civics, economics, philosophy and history in general and even more astounded at the level of knowledge about current events and issues. From construction workers to executives, its amazing how people simply absorb the most satisfying and personal-point-of-view-re-affirming sound-bites from mass media outlets instead of delving deep into often publicly available facts and interpreting them for themselves. Of course, these "facts" themselves can be subject to criticism due to biases and error, but I find few people who scrutinize issues deeply enough to even arrive at debates about reliability, validity, statistical methods, logical consistency, etc.
If I hear another person cites the McDonald's hot coffee case to me, I think I'll scream. Did you know that her settlement was reduced on appeal such that she could barely pay for her SKIN GRAFTS; or that McDonald's was warned an average of 80-90 times per year that their coffee was too unnecessarily hot for the flimsy containers that they were handing it out in? Once again, people rely on talking heads and evening news sound bites to tell them what they should think about this issue. Gee, I wonder why news outlets owned my global multi-national corporations would like to belittle a profession that provides one of the few defenses common people have when they are assaulted and defrauded by global multi-national corporations? Its a real head scratcher.
b. Ignorance about the legal profession. I can't tell you how many people are rude to me once they find out I'm a lawyer. I've had men threaten me physically just because they found out what I do for a living. People never even consider that the reason they hate lawyers might have something to do with the aforementioned media bias coupled with simple classical conditioning. What I mean by this is that lawyers typically come into the average person's life when things are not going well, a drunk driving charge, a lawsuit, a divorce or a bankruptcy. Bad events occur and we are tasked with (hopefully) fixing them or at least easing the pain. The psychology is quite simple, lawyers become associated with the emotions sparked by the negative events they have to deal with. I think, too, the common misconception that all lawyers are liars and cheats come from the fact that we have to advocate a position often without knowing who to trust. A plaintiff attorney knows the other side will lie, but its also quite likely that his client lies to him/her also. Our system is set up to deal with this. Lawyers are permitted to plead many often contrary causes at the outset of a case. Then discovery begins and we all try to hash out the facts. In the end, the trial determines what we in a society accept as the truth and the best way to compromise on grievances. I hear about frivolous lawsuits from the media and friends, but my experience is quite different. Everybody wants a free lawyer, my buddy says, and I learn this more and more every day. This means that I can either turn you away as a client or take the case on contingency where I pay all the expenses usually and work for free unless we win. WHY on earth would I go through the time and expense of filing a civil lawsuit (its about $200-500 just to file where I practice) if I thought it was frivolous. What actually happens is that I turn away people that might have decent case because I just can't afford to take it forward without further investigation (which also costs... you guessed it... money!). This leads me to second big issue.
2. Economics and (lack of) Opportunity
a. News flash: We’re not all wealthy. Most lawyers I know make $28,000 to $55,000 per year. It’s often difficult for many lawyers in small practices, private practices and government to make ends meet, especially after considering the crushing student loans that many of them have (private law schools are terribly expensive, god help you if you didn’t do well). I see my peers climbing the ladder in their respective professions at a brisk pace ( I flatter them that I keep a rather clever circle of friends), while in my profession a rigid caste system is emerging. A tiny minority make the salaries that we all hear about in the press and see glamorized in ridiculous television shows. Like many other professions, a few at the top victimize those at the bottom.
The hereditary aristocracy have no problem capitalizing their law firms if they didn’t do well enough in law school (only those from elite law schools and those in the top 10% or so of their class get the kinds of jobs you all seem to think we have… and everybody tries hard in law school, its insanely competitive). The rest of us struggle with the simple economics I mentioned before. If I do manage to get clients to come to me, a new and unknown attorney, I may have to wait years to see a pay off if any from a civil lawsuit. All businesses deal with the catch 22 of needing money to advertise to get the clients to get the money to pay for that advertising, but with lawyers its even more acute, b/c we also have to wait for our cases to pay after we get the clients. Sometimes they don’t ever pay. With bankruptcies, divorces and criminal work we have to deal with clients’ lack of resources, partially b/c of the widening gap between rich and poor in this country but also because of idiotic legislation like the Bankruptcy “Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection” Act of 2005 and corrupt “tort reform” that people are flim-flammed into believing have something to do with getting rid of all of those “frivolous” lawsuits. (please see section 1. a. and 2. b. of this rant).
b. Pressure and Opportunity: Lawyers are experiencing ridiculously low wages because the powers that be simply don’t care. The top of our profession is controlled by wealthy aristocrats and technocrats who see the glut of lawyers below them as a boon… hey, cheap labor. Maybe that’s why law schools continue to grow their class sizes despite insufficient demand for legal services. Maybe that’s why they out-right LIE about the wages that their alumni earn. (As prospective students we, too, were guilty of not thinking critically and conducting indepth research to find out the truth. Its ironic that law school teaches you just enough to realize how much you’re getting screwed).
Because of the rigid caste system in our profession and the high costs of starting out on one’s own, many attorneys are forced to take legal temp work, where they are unable to further or sharpen their skills as lawyers. Many young professionals trade experience for good wages, but often, we get neither. At the time I took a break to write this I had logged 69.3 hours this week. I worked 15 hours on thanksgiving. I receive no health benefits, I have no retirement plan. I work seven days a week. Sometimes, I can’t even figure out if it’s the weekend, when I don’t have court for one of my own private cases. Every day is Monday. By wasting 3 years in law school and 3 years in practice, I’ve crippled my ability to move laterally to a more rewarding line of work. It wouldn’t matter anyway, b/c only elites and their children seem to get what we would consider good paying career type jobs in this economy.
Oh, and finally, the bar tells me a zillion in one ways that I shouldn’t try to make money. Everything that makes money, for the non-elite lawyer, is unethical it seems. The bar continues to harvest the same sorts of dues from me, that it takes from super-rich corporate and trial lawyers. The burdens and benefits of this profession are inequitably distributed. I guess it’s a lot like American society nowadays.
Conclusion: Needless to say, this can make one apathetic, which may be the whole point of why things are structured to be this way in the first place. - futureb, on 11/24/2007, -0/+3see Article II of the constitution: "[the president] may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices." that's right: executive departments. says it right there in the constitution. but even if it didn't, your view of the constitution & authority is totally flawed.
- marymccurnin, on 11/24/2007, -2/+5A must read.
- washingtonydc, on 11/24/2007, -0/+3Congress cannot make laws to "provide for...general welfare". They can only "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" for the general welfare.
- jeffiek, on 11/24/2007, -1/+3The "provide for ... general Welfare" clause is a blanket statement that can be used to justify just about anything, education, or outlawing marijuana.
If that were the case there would be no need at all for the Constitution. Read what the WRITERS of the Constitution had to say about that subject.
"I will give you $1000, but only if you use it to improve your house." ???????
No, it's more like "I'll take $1000 from you, then I'll give it back if you use it to improve your house".
Let's see, the Feds take the money from the people, they THREATEN to keep it, UNLESS the states do their bidding.
Try again. - edstate, on 11/24/2007, -3/+4This and a loser pays legal system to stem the tide of frivolous lawsuits, and we're golden.
- Andysan, on 11/24/2007, -1/+2It isn't just the politicians who ignore the law(Constitution), but activist judges who truly believe the end justifies any means at their disposal. The resulting unintended consequences can be tremendous, yet the ruling judges are never held accountable. When rule by men replaces rule by law, everyone loses in the long run.
- AriaStar, on 11/24/2007, -1/+2Damn straight.
- artanis, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1Yes, instead of talking about the topic throw generalized insults with no substance or proof. Thanks for nothing.
- futureb, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1from one lawyer to another: stay with it. don't leave the legal profession if it's what you believe you should do. don't measure your own success against people at big firms. it's still a meritocracy. if you have your own clients you are - in effect - a small businessman. most small business fail, just as most small practices fail. but it's up to you. and if you're a good lawyer you will make it work.
- stray, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1Can anyone find a primary source on this speech? I'd like to read it in its entirety.
- newtonusr, on 11/24/2007, -1/+1LHP's terrific extension of Gov. Cuomo's speech. And the lawyers in Pakistan are teaching us about courage...
- smallcreep, on 11/24/2007, -1/+0Mario Coumo? NY is still suffering from his reign. He is a cabon.
- sockpuppets, on 11/24/2007, -3/+1I'd go with "flair" but hey that's just me. All my articles are better with more flair.
- XavierOnassis, on 11/24/2007, -4/+2Read anything you can by Looseheadprop. You will learn so much.
- WeirdEdsel, on 11/24/2007, -7/+2***** the RIAA.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is