The Anti Lawyer in Legislation Movement
By Jason Bland, guest political columnist – August 24, 2010
John Adams is one of twenty-six lawyers to become President of the United States.
It’s August, and we are nearly two years into a new presidency, which means we will soon be exposed to a wide array of campaign tactics. The stump speeches, mud slinging and listing of candidate credentials are as American this time of year as backyard grilling and apple pie.
I recently attended a candidate forum at Bell Shoals Baptist Church, a mega-church in Brandon, Fla. with a $10 million campus, according to the Hillsborough County Tax Appraiser. As a friend of some candidates, I went to show my support, and looked forward to seeing what the political hopefuls had to say – especially the ones running for local seats.
Bell Shoals Baptist Church is no stranger to walking the thin line of non-political activism to maintain their 501(c)(3) status. Two years ago, they openly pushed for the passage of “Yes on 2,” which was Florida’s equivalent to California’s Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage within the state.
The church did not discriminate against candidates. Republicans, write-ins, Libertarians, independents, and Democrats alike were all invited, and many attended.
The church even extended an invitation, which was accepted, to the independent candidate for Florida House of Representatives District 58, Joseph (Joe) Redner, a long-time troublemaker for the county commissioners and city council and owner of Tampa’s most popular strip club, Mons Venus. The church surprisingly decided against hanging garlic cloves above every doorway in preparation of his entrance and departure. It was a decision they most assuredly regretted when the self-proclaimed atheist used his two minutes to say a prayer, giving thanks for all of the things the church stands against.
For the most part, everyone maintained cordial behavior as they sat back in the church pews and listened to candidates plead for votes.
I’ve never considered myself an extremist on either side. I can generally debate points against extreme liberal views, argue economic strategies with far-right conservatives, and possibly find common ground with most. However, the theme of that night has drastically changed my views of what voters connect to.
As the night went on, candidate after candidate took the pulpit and gave stump speeches that made me wonder if they were applying for a job as my babysitter or vying for a seat in government.
It seemed as though the candidates could not position themselves without the humble closing remarks of “I believe in the Constitution, that a marriage is between a man and a women, I’m pro-life, pro-guns, and against health care for all.” Giving a head count of offspring in their family was also mandatory in their efforts to show that they were qualified for their respective seats.
While I’m still going through the minutes from county commission hearings to find out what decisions they made that would require me to know how many children they have, how well they can fire a gun, or their position on gay marriage and health care, the theme just seemed to be a “Jesus Loves Me More” contest.
As many held up the Constitution in one hand and invoked the Second Amendment, they ignored the First Amendment in the next breath by calling for more Christian-based laws. This was followed by support for the repeal/modification of the Fourteenth Amendment, thanks to the introduction of the new red herring slang, “anchor babies.”
It only took about 45 minutes for it to become obvious that any moderate voter attending this event looking for definitive differences on positions in local issues was going to be gravely disappointed. The only actual “issues” were between the Republican County Commissioner hopeful, Josh Burgin, and the incumbent, Marc Sharpe. Sharpe supports a $0.01 sales tax increase to pay for a job-creating light rail line between Orlando and Tampa, Fla., the other supports no tax and wants to widen roads, as pavement and road construction crews are free.
It also became clear that only a few candidates on stage truly believed in the Constitution or the bible, but have rather become fond of several passages they agree with and have simply pin-knifed the remainder, which goes against their ideals.
With exception to the attorney general and the local judges attending the event, many non-lawyer candidates waived their lack of legal experience as a flamboyant badge of competence that made them more qualified to legislate on behalf of the great state of Florida. State Representative and State Senate hopefuls talked about the evil “lawyers” in legislation and lamented that the problem with politics is indeed legalistic legislators.
After two hours of this event, it became very clear that the secret to being qualified as a legislator is to not know the law. With every statement that screamed from the speakers, I wondered if I was still in Florida or if I had accidentally stumbled into the Hazzard County political debates.
Keep Lawyers Out of My Constitution
Many would argue that our forefathers were philosophical geniuses, striving to give power to the common workingman. These farmers and Protestants worked together to draft the most important document in the United States, the Constitution.
Philosophical geniuses they were, but the delegates were not made of the “common workingman,” and many of them would make a modern day Protestant blush.
The Constitution was drafted by 55 individuals (delegates) at the Philadelphia Convention, which was a four-month convening between May 25 and Sept. 17, 1787. They did not gather to write the Constitution but rather to “fix” the government structure, which was operating under the Articles of Confederation. However, attendees like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton (as well as others) went with the preconceived goal of establishing a new government, rather than modifying their existing one. [2]
Of the 55 delegates, 34 were lawyers. Many of the other delegates were made up of various professions of honor, but none of them were uneducated and most were high society. [1]
This notion that educated candidates with legal backgrounds creates an elitist congress is somewhat of a new idea. The United States has seen 26 lawyers take the helm at the Oval Office. From Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, to the more recent presidents like FDR, Nixon and Ford, voters decided that those who have practiced the law should have the power to sign them into effect. [3]
President Nixon’s vice president from 1969 to 1973 was attorney Spiro Agnew. Agnew, of course, was later disbarred after being found guilty of bribery charges, which resulted in Richard Nixon appointing another lawyer, House Minority Leader Gerald Ford. Ford became the first and, to date, only president to hold the seat without being elected. [4]
Ford, like Nixon, was a moderate Republican who then selected liberal Republican Nelson A. Rockefeller as vice president. Rockefeller was not a lawyer, but rather a businessman who served under Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower, as well as Nixon. He was a fairly liberal politician who would probably be wrongly considered a socialist in modern day, thus those in the GOP who leaned left were often referred to as “Rockefeller Republicans.”
As the tone of the nation was moving right in 1976, Gerald Ford decided to run for president with a more conservative running mate, Kansas Senator Bob Dole. Of course, this did not help his campaign, as Jimmy Carter carried most of the south, East Coast and Texas, winning him the presidential election even though the entire West Coast and Midwest voted for Ford. [5]
Jimmy Carter reigned in what would be a 16-year era of non-lawyers signing laws into effect. The White House would not see another attorney turned president until Jan. 20, 1993, when Yale Law School graduate William (Bill) Clinton would be sworn in as the 42nd president of the United States. However, Jimmy Carter selected attorney Walter Mondale as vice president and George H.W. Bush selected jurist Dan Quayle. Quayle, who graduated law school and passed the bar exam, worked at his father’s newspaper, then ran for congress in 1976, thus never practicing or teaching law. [6]
In 2004, a Zogby/Williams poll showed that 57 percent of Americans would rather have a beer with George W. Bush than his opponent, attorney-turned-Senator John Kerry, who was running with North Carolina personal injury lawyer-turned-inseminator, John Edwards. [7]
Four years later, a similar dislike for the well educated would surface, as supporters of the John McCain and Sarah Palin ticket would talk about their dislike for the “elitist” lawyer team, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Cheerleader Sarah Palin coined the phrase, “real America,” thus implying parts of the nation were not “pro-America” if they chose not to adopt a small-town rural lifestyle. Such a comment inspired Sarah Palin barback House Representative Michelle Bachman to call for a media-lead investigation of Congress to determine who was “pro-America” and “anti-America,” a notion that would have made former Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy do something he had never done while alive… smile. [8]
A growing fear of the well educated and in particular, educated in law, is apparent in recent primary results. Across the nation in the upcoming mid-term elections, intelligent Republicans and Democrats are losing to non-lawyer opponents while preparing to face lawyers in the main election. In Connecticut, wrestling empire diva Linda McMahon beat Rob Simmons, a Republican Army veteran, Harvard graduate, college professor and former congressman. [9] Also on the Republican primary ticket was Peter Schiff, a U.C. Berkeley graduate and economist. McMahon will face Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in the main election.
In Kentucky, Dr. Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist (who is not certified by the American Board of Ophthalmology, but rather the National Board of Ophthalmology, which he and his wife founded) [10] beat attorney Trey Grayson in the Republican primary. Paul will face Attorney General Jack Conway for the Kentucky Senate seat.
In other areas of life, voters would be foolish to adopt a similar mindset. Hiring the painter to service a transmission would yield an attractive yet useless gear-shifting device. What if you went to a close friend who had a large family, a college degree in archeology and held similar religious beliefs as you when you had the flu or pneumonia? Thinking that doctors have become so out of touch with “real America,” clearly someone you like is to be more trusted then someone who is qualified to practice medicine.
Yet we find ourselves faced with a decision this fall (in three parties). Do we select economists and attorneys to draft the legislation that will put the nation back on track, or do we pick the person with whom we would rather have a beer? If the decision gives you a headache, perhaps you should consult with your mechanic about the best prescription drug to relieve the pain.
Recommended Reading
Sources
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention
2) http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html
3) http://www.jdblissblog.com/2006/11/25_of_our_natio.html
4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Agnew
5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter
6) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973683,00.html
7) http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2004-09-17-benedetto_x.htm
8 ) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102449.html
9) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/11/politics/main6762871.shtml
10) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Board_certification
The SEOLawFirm.com Newsroom extends editorial freedom to their staff and guest writers thus the views expressed in this column may not reflect the views of SEOLawFirm.com, Adviatech Corp., or any of its holdings, affiliates, or advertisers.
