Are lay people unqualified to analyze laws?

[genius]

It is a question that often comes up every time a proposition destroying good laws or creating bad ones passes overwhelmingly only to be later hated by the people who thought they knew what they were doing when they voted for it. They thought they could read the language but they failed to know that language often has a different result when viewed in terms of precedents and precise legal meaning.

There have been a lot of discussions of HR 418. A great many legislators, who opposed it in the House, know that it could be used to authorize terrorist attacks and death camps. 152 Democrats and 8 Republicans in the House knew how bad it was. Many of these were not attorneys. However, their legislative background has allowed them to know the extent to which the dangerous provisions of HR 418 can be misused. However, the Republicans have an approach aimed at convincing the lay people that it is just a border bill and that "All laws" can be seen in a narrower context. The fact that the courts do not limit "all laws" to narrower contexts, even if that is the hope in based on other language, is irrelevant when one is on a selling mission. I applaud those in the House who had the ability to see the danger.

But the fact that some people are being taken in by the Republican approach does remind me of the question, "Are lay people as a rule well enough educated about law to decide what laws are good and what laws are bad? My belief is that anyone, like Abe Lincoln, can educate themselves. The trouble is that too many people don't take the time to do so.

[rzemanfl]

1. Thanks for fixing that. n/t

[Padme Amidala]

5. She spelled it correctly.

I guess this is a joke.

[rzemanfl]

6. It wasn't spelled correctly when I posted. n/t

[Padme Amidala]

9. When I logged on, it was spelled correctly and there were no responses.

The spelling checker for this thing is a little messed up. Perhaps she posted and instantly corrected.

[rzemanfl]

12. Of course you know, this means war. Just kidding, it really was

spelled either analize or analise when I first saw it, both of which sound like services Jeff Gannon would offer.

[oneighty]

2. The last I knew

the constitution does not require Supreme Court Judges to be lawyers or versed in the law. Often I think it would be good to have a butcher a baker and a candlestick maker on the court.

People with some common sense.

[intheflow]

4. Scary thought!

Think about the horror freak show this adminstration would nominate if the precident was set of nominating lay people to the courts. :scared:

It's a bad enough freak show as it is. No need to broaden th pool of applicants.

[oneighty]

19. I think it was a book

'The Brethren' By Bod Woodward that pointed out that much if not all the opinions by the JUDGES (God bless em) were researched and written by their law interns. If that is true and I believe it to be than any person should be able to pass judgment and say "Hey good job gang. I agree."

Our local 'Justice of the Peace' requires no formal education at all. Surprisingly they seem to do a decent if not perfect job.

180

[intheflow]

21. Very true.

And the rule of law has been used to oppress people since the beginning of of humanity.

I'm just saying... if their view of "legal" is torture, imagine what what their side's "regular joe" would find acceptable. So a regular person from our side sounds sane, but the flip side, that the privilege needs to be extended to them... I just think that sounds insane.

:shrug:

[Coastie for Truth]

10. Also, the Surgeon General is not required to be a doctor, and

he is an Admiral - not a General.

Strictly speaking, the Surgeon General could be a dentist, a nurse, a pharmacist, a veterinarian, an engineer (pharmaceutical manufacturing, environmental), or a biostatistician -- anybody qualified for any specialty in the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. (Link: http://www.usphs.gov/html/professions.html)

[Padme Amidala]

14. Isn't that stupid?

What if he/she comes up with a policy that kills millions of people? Maybe that's been done.

[Padme Amidala]

15. Feinstein is on the judiciary committee and she's not an attorney.

Why isn't Barbara there instead? Feinstein votes in the stupidest ways.

[RoeBear]

3. You have to have common sense to

analyze laws. That's the first thing that they drum out of students in law school.

[Padme Amidala]

11. I can't believe anyone has trouble with the Rule Against Perpetuities.

I think it is because people don't see enough possibilities. Some people think that things are the way they look and don't take into account what they think is impossible.

[rzemanfl]

16. The rule against perpetuities was a way for the rich to screw the

poor. After the plagues hit in the 14th century, there was a shortage of peasants to work the land and they used it to put it to the rich people by getting leases that ran for generations. The rule against perpetuities was the rich people's way to break them.

[Padme Amidala]

17. It invalidated a lot of grants and will provisions.

This is why educated people should be making legal documents. But it shows that what those who don't understand it think is plain English may not be.

[Yosie]

7. If you have a set of "Hornbooks" ("Law For Dummies" Type)

and actually read them carefully - and look up what you don't know in a "Treatise" or "Digest" first - i.e., a little bit more detailed then a "Hornbook" with a better treatment of the nuances and reasoning - you can analyze a law.

Some laws nobody can analyze. Some laws - a non-lawyer might be better at (like a good accountant with the Internal Revenue Code or a Research & Development manager who hires/manages patent attorneys with Patent Law, or a real American History buff with Constitutional Law).

I know some engineers whose knowledge of Sections 102 and 103 and 112 of the Patent Code is better then that of some high priced patent attorneys, and I have a history prof friend whose knowldege of the nuances of the "hot political and historical cases" of the Supreme Court will outdo most lawyers.

Just takes patience and diligence and "digging".

[newyawker99]

23. Hi Yosie!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Padme Amidala]

8. You have a valid point. There should be a test for those elected.

If they are in a position to pass laws, they should have the capability to analyze the stuff they pass. The 42 Democrats and the 219 Republicans who voted for HR 418 would not have been able to pass this test, unless their votes were for purely evil purposes.

Perhaps only those who could pass some kind of a test should vote on propositions and initiatives that have legal implications, also.

The trouble with a test is it is reminiscent of the literacy tests. However, these were not given to all and that is why they were so tough. If the same test were given to all, it might show who knew what they were voting on and who wasn't qualified.

[Guaranteed]

13. Well, many of them ARE lawyers.

You'd think at least one of our congresspeople could figure out what the thing means.

[gratuitous]

18. Unqualified? N-n-no

But as a couple of posters have pointed out, there are any number of unintended consequences of virtually any bit of lawmaking. I generally support the system that allows us citizens initiatives, but when they pass, they're almost always a nightmare to implement. The Oregon Legislature is still trying to figure out just what voters approved when they passed Measure 37, which was styled as a reform to Oregon's land use laws.

Unfortunately, what the advertising was for the measure was not exactly in concert with the actual language of the measure. At this point, the legislature is treating Measure 37 as a partial repeal of all land use laws, and trying to write administrative rules that will implement "the will of the voters." I wish them luck.

At least in a legislative session, legislators have access to state attorneys general and other lawyers to help them craft laws, and make sure they don't conflict with other sections of the law, or if they do, to write the law so that any exceptions are noted. They also have the example of other laws in the statutes so that they can use consistent phrasing and legally defined terms.

Ballot initiatives, on the other hand, are often either "kitchen table" proposals that don't take such things into account, or are professionally written by advocacy groups, drafted with anti-matter language designed to confuse the issue, but in reality to make a proposed change that they prefer without tipping their hand to the electorate, knowing that their proposal probably wouldn't pass if they were up front about it.

Measure 37 fits into that category, more or less. It was sold to Oregon voters as a needed and necessary reform of some of the more egregious excesses of Oregon's land use laws. What it turns out to be is a jackpot for landowners and developers, who can now extort huge sums from the general fund or throw up poorly designed or inappropriate buildings in order to turn a quick buck.

[Zinfandel]

20. Yes. Because we are dumb and should just trust what they tell us...

They know what laws are best for us and they can analyze news and facts to distort the laws & news better & faster than we can, it's for are own good...come on dude, get with the program, everyones doing it.

[LittleClarkie]

22. Dude, are you a lawyer?

or are you a lay person who's talked to lawyers about this stuff?

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. Not one member of the House said that it would authorize death camps

Only a few hysterical Internet posters have made such claims.

[Tigress DEM]

27. Ah, since the big ol' politicians didn't say it, it's all ok then.

LET me clarify something in case you didn't have time to read the post you responded to prior to beginning your attack on other DUers....

<snip>
A great many legislators, who opposed it in the House, know that it could be used to authorize terrorist attacks and death camps.

The fact that something "could" be used and "would" be used are two different things entirely.

A knife "could" be used to kill someone. Whether it "would" be used to do so depends on who is holding it.

When making ammendments to the Constitution it is the job of the politicians putting the law together to see to it that the ammendment isn't
A) Contradictory to the spirit of the Constitution
B) Loosely defined enough to be abused in the future

So what this ammendment "could" authorize is their job to understand. If it "could" happen and it "shouldn't" it's their job to make sure we don't know if anyone "would" or not.

Only an idiot leaves their keys running in an unlocked car. You want to give the Secretary of Homeland Security carte blance authority to suspend "any law" go find some other country to give away and leave MINE alone.

[Constitution]

29. Good response Tigress DEM

It's good to see that there are some clear thinking members on this board.

[Tigress DEM]

30. Considering the time I posted it, your comment really means a lot.

The more I learn the harder it is to sleep at night. I feel I must say one more and one more thing as if it's my penance for not knowing more of this before now.

A friend of mine tried to tell me some of this stuff about 10 years ago, but I was uncomprehending, wanting sources to verify what she was telling me. She took offense that I didn't simply take her word and be convinced... yet I did believe that she was being honest with me I just thought there must be more to it, maybe a bias in the information she reviewed that only painted the worst light.

One of her main argument was that we should not support the Jews and that it irritated her that the Holocaust stories were pulled out with such regularity, but the other genocides were brushed aside and our involvement hushed up.

I felt that certainly there should be more done about getting the truth out about other genocides was needed but the one I was aware of (Serbians in Kosovo) happened so quickly that I thought it was an example of, "Yes, these things happen, but we didn't go out and do this, we just didn't do enough to stop it fast enough."

She was a busy lady and lost patience with me and now after digesting information on the internet in chunks that threaten to swallow up my humanity I wonder how do you explain all of this to anyone?

Yet, it really was her rage directed at me and anyone who didn't take the time to look all this stuff up themselves that hurt our relationship and made me back away from discussions with her that could have moved me forward years sooner.

She was right on every count really, but being right doesn't always provide the means for someone else to go there with you.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. How do you know that a 'great many legislators' who opposed the bill

know that it would aothorize death camps? Which legislators have said this? Or is this simply speculation?

[Constitution]

28. That's not true. That's exactly what many of them are saying.

A delegation from our group met with one of the Congresswomen who voted against it and that is a large part of the reason they opposed it. They don't understand why the danger is not obvious to everyone.

Unfortunately, as in Germany, some people are slow to catch on to what is happening. The great-grandparents of my best friend were killed in the death camps because they thought as you did.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. Which member of Congress said that the bill would authorize death camps?

I'm sure that you will be able to cite a source for this. ;)

[yellozebra]

25. Have you read some of these Bills/Laws? Unf**%&!gaccessible

I agree that if you are a representative of the people you should educate/upskill yourself so you can do your job. However, I am totally against this outdated notion that Laws must still be written exclusively in legalese. What about us, the people, why are documents that serve to govern us incomprehensible? And the mustards then have the cheek to claim ignorance of the law is no excuse. It's a ruse.

I want laws (and documents) I can understand: the ruling of the people, for the people, by the people? My behind!

[Tigress DEM]

32. Umm, that's why we have reporters .... um, we used to have...

reporters asking the tough questions, digging through information, consulting experts and laying it out in plain English for the rest of us to decide.

[Tigress DEM]

26. Some laws are so complex and in such legal speak...

In fact if I could "trust" our government, I probably wouldn't have looked at the law at all, but as soon as I someone - was it you, genius? pointed out Sect 102 giving the Secretary of Homeland Security authority to suspend all laws... my common sense kicked in... gee that doesn't sound Constitutional... does it now?

I think whether we are qualified to analyze the details or not, we should be listening to people who are and weighing the truth of their words and watching their deeds to make sure they are trustworthy, and once informed SHOUT OUT.

I may not be qualified to analyze California's water situation, but if they are seeing poisonus jet fuel components leeching into lettuce and cows milk, I think I can logically conclude it's a problem whether I have a degree in science or not.

[IndianaGreen]

31. Lay people can analyze laws

they just cannot provide legal advice.

[independentchristian]

35. "Unqualified"? No, that's the freaking problem in this country!!!

Everyone needs to "analyze" the laws, and since they are citizens, they have just as much of a right to "analyze" the laws as anyone else does, duh.

If everyone in this country "analyzed" the laws, the Congress would have been forced to impeach Bush during his first term. :grr:

What kind of a foolish question is that that you are asking? The problem is not enough people analyze the laws, for goodness sake! :grr: