Re: MD Principles

From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Feb 20 2002 - 00:45:00 GMT


Hey Platt,

PLATT
....I hope Bush, sworn to defend the
> Constitution, vetoes the reform bill on the grounds you cited, assuming
> the bill reaches his desk. But my hope is dim because from what I've
> read, the bill benefits Republicans, at least initially. Besides, few take
> oaths seriously these days.

RICK
In a sense... All of our Presidents routinely sign bills that don't believe
to be all-Constitutional. The problem is that your average piece of
legislation/appropriations bill is as thick as a phone book and contains
hundreds (sometimes thousands) of different provisions on numerous and
unconnected topics. When a president signs a bill into law, it's almost
always part compromise. This is the reason that Congress sought to secure
the President a 'line-item veto' which would allow him to only sign into law
the parts of the bill he agrees with. However, the Supreme Court struck
this practice down as unconstitutional (for reasons a bit too complicated to
get into here).

PLATT
> You appear to be as concerned about the "clearly unconstitutional" part
> of the bill as it stands as I am. I'm delighted that we can join hands on
> this along with our interest in the MOQ.

RICK
It is nice to agree for a change. Though (as you may have guessed) I prefer
to fence.
(I've sent out second post along with this one in which I address some more
MOQ related comments you made in this thread. I'd be interested in your...
assessment).

PLATT
> I do wonder, though, if it is absolutely necessary for you to pass a bar
> exam to practice law legally in your state. Or is there a loophole here,
> too? (-:
>
RICK
    Well... it depends on what you mean by 'practice law'. The Courts have
developed thousands of pages of precedent on what it does and doesn't mean
to 'practice law.' Without getting into any of that....
    Anyone is able to act as their own attorney regardless of legal training
or bar passage. Law students often get to write motions and argue them
before judges (I myself have already argued motions in federal court, on
behalf of poor defendants at night court, and written opinions for a state
judge). One need not pass the bar to argue before an administrative law
judge or an arbitrator (although few non-lawyers actually succeed in these
fields).
    If you're asking whether I could be a "lawyer" (ie. a practicing
professional) without passing the bar, then the answer is no... But of
course, that's at least partially semantic. After all, being a member of
the bar is what makes one a lawyer in the first place. Of course, I
wouldn't recommend falsely holding yourself out to be a licensed attorney
(not unless you have some overriding desire to see the inside of a state
prison).
     But just so you know, even this rule has admitted of exceptions in the
past, here's on example...
    About a decade ago in Florida, a rather adept con-artist set himself as
a lawyer. He got a client and filed a suit on behalf of the client where he
argued it all the way up to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supremes
(now having figured out the man was not a lawyer) refused to let him argue.
The man appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court who announced that
taking the man off the case at such a late date and replacing him would
probably harm his client's interests as much as it would help, so they
issued an opinion that said he could finish the case.
    As soon as it was over, he tried to set himself up as actual lawyer
claiming that the opinion of the US Supreme Court meant that he was allowed
to practice law without law school or bar exam... and he threatened to
personally sue any judge who refused to let him practice. Well, once the US
Supremes got wind of this, they put the kibosh on that plan right away...
they explained that their holding was limited to cases in which the client's
interests would be detrimentally effected by being denied representation by
a non-bar member. Needless to say, the man can no longer practice law.
    But the point is that under the right set of facts and circumstances,
even the Bar requirement was waived.

rick

MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:52 BST