Feeding At The Lobbyistsâ€™ Trough Part I
By: Keith Allison
For the life of me, I donâ€™t know whoâ€™s the most worthless drain on mankind; lobbyistsâ€™, corrupt politicians, judges, or bureaucrats who suckle from the teet of those who provide monetary incentives to the peopleâ€™s servants in order to have their way at the public expense. I know, I know, the lobbyist industry, political hacks, unethical judges, and power hungry bureaucrats each regurgitate the same spiel in defense of their larcenous behavior. They always claim that â€œlobbyists arenâ€™t buying political, judicial, or bureaucratic intervention in support of their questionable agendas; theyâ€™re merely â€˜guaranteeingâ€™ their access to the decision makers in government.â€ Does that mean that those of us who refuse to â€œvoluntarily contributeâ€ to any given political war chest cannot have access to those we elect to office?
While I have very little use for most bureaucrats or politicians, my contempt for the majority of the members of the legal profession knows no bounds. And with so many attorneyâ€™s finding the legislative system ripe for plundering, my respect for the legal profession is probably lower than Badwater Basin in Death Valley. By ensconcing themselves within the legislative and/or bureaucratic systems, lawyers not only make the laws the rest of us must live by, they also pass judgment on us whenever they decide weâ€™ve disobeyed their all too numerous edicts. But I suppose the thing that irritates me the most about attorneys, is that they apparently believe the law applies to Joe Six Pack, but not themselves.
Having witnessed so much judicial, legislative, and legal profession contempt for the Constitution as I have, I donâ€™t believe my taking umbrage with any of these institutions is unjustified; but I wonâ€™t bore my readers to tears with a case by case dissertation of those incidents. Suffice it to say that I believe the legal system is no less corrupt than any branch of government. I also believe that in many instances, the legal community is more inclined to promote a deplorable level of theatrics (the Anna Nichole Smith case comes readily to mind) than they are in the law itself. Another area of deep concern to them is their â€œcourt rulesâ€ they set up to make it all but impossible for the average citizen to gain access to the courts without representation by an ethics challenged attorney.
One of the numerous subjects few attorneyâ€™s, legislators, or judges will tell the average citizen, is that as long as they do no harm, their occupation is a property right under the common law right to earn a living at your chosen occupation. A personâ€™s occupation also falls under the right to The Pursuit of Happiness as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment to The Constitution. Inherent in this RIGHT, are any and all licenses, certifications, and/or registrations necessary to practice your chosen occupation as these are legally deemed to be PROPERTY. Therefore, when any government entity attempts to deprive a person of that property right with questionable justification for doing so, they are in violation of constitutional mandates. Remember, as I stated in my earlier commentary, in Miller vs. U.S., the court held, â€œ The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.â€ Unfortunately, thatâ€™s not the way the judicial and legal systems so often work.
Also, under constitutional law, no branch of government, nor any private organization or entity has the legitimate authority to place undue or unnecessary regulatory burdens upon the claim or exercise of a constitutional right. That again goes back to an individualâ€™s property and common law rights when there is little, if any, potential for harm to the public. The fact of the matter is, if there is little, if any, potential for harm to anyone, an occupation may only be regulated at the least restrictive level which generally precludes full licensure or certification. For situations such as these, any attempt to go beyond â€œregistrationâ€ can raise the issue of restraint of trade or anti trust activity on the part of the regulators. Or where the public is concerned, denial of their freedom of choice which can also be brought into this equation if one wishes.
Knowledge is the key that unlocks the shackles of bondage.