UPSIDE/DOWNSIDE OF REMOVAL OF LAWYERS FROM ELECTIVE OFFICE

D-1 Preamble: The purpose for writing the Federalist Papers (86 to 107) and the establishment of the Constitutional Guardians is the removal of lawyers from elective office in the executive or legislative branches, in order to restore constitutional government, liberty and justice in the land. Persuading the American people that this course is the only right and proper one is dependent on the logical, legal, and constitutional validity of the arguments made, and an analysis of the Upside/Downside potential of the implementation of the idea.

The first task has been accomplished to the overwhelming satisfaction of the vast majority of those who are familiar with the position. Along with the conclusive arguments founded in logic and constitutional law the Federalist Papers (86 to 107) discuss the enormous advantages that are reasonably certain to flow from such action. Some of these advantages, known as the upside are:

The Upside : Savings to the Nation in the order of one trillion dollars a year, or 7% of 2010 GNP (Gross National Product), or over $2.7 Billion a day; restoration of ethical government; restoration of an effective Bill of Rights, (the enforceability of which is now financially unattainable for the vast majority of Americans); divorce without wars; saving Social security and Medicare as part of the trillion dollar a year savings; the reduction of crime and the criminalization of the police; accessibility to the Courts for all; meaningful educational reforms that would eliminate the scourge of illiteracy; tort reform that would favor victims over lawyers, and much else.

We now address the second question: What would the cost to the Nation and/or lawyers be if it turns out that it was error to remove lawyers from public office? That ‘cost’, known as the downside, would be:

The Downside. There are 435 Congressmen, 100 Senators, One President and One Vice President, elected to the United States Federal Government. That is a total of 537 elected officials. The States have, on average, less than one third as many elected officials. (Florida, the fourth largest State has less than one third as many). Therefore the total of all elected officials in the Nation can be said to be no more than a total of about 10,000 people. If control of over 50% constitutes absolute control, it would suffice that no more than some 5000 lawyers hold public office for that control to exist. Effective control can be achieved with a strong plurality of as few as say 3000 lawyers.

So all that is being called for is the removal from elective office, through the ballot box, of a mere 3000 to 5000 lawyers. They are the only one’s directly affected. They constitute about one third to one half per cent of all lawyers in America. Or about one in 200 lawyers, and only about one in 50,000 Americans. All these lawyers are skilled politicians or they would not have been elected. All have excellent networks and connections. In general all the evidence supports the conclusion that career paths for lawyers who leave public office today is a) more lucrative employment, b) retirement or c) prison. (Even those who go to prison seem to do all right when they get out).

There is therefore absolutely no reason to believe that lawyers who would otherwise be elected to public office are losing out on gainful employment or legitimate income potential. If they have a burning desire ‘to serve their country’ there are many other ways besides being elected to public office that will serve as well.

Whatever skills lawyers bring to the Legislative and Executive Branches they can still bring as advisers not decision makers. Therefore no argument can be made that their particular ‘skills at the law’ would be lost or that lawyers alone are equipped to govern. To assert that is to argue that the other 259, 995,000 people in this land who are non-lawyers are too stupid to either govern on their own or listen to the advice of others. That is nonsense.

Therefore neither the lawyers in question who might otherwise have served in elective office, stand to suffer materially in any way, nor does the Nation. Therefore it is evident that the enormous upside combined with such an insignificant downside should be enough logically to recommend the proposed solution even absent any other legal or constitutional argument. How much more so then when both logical and constitutional arguments favor the action?