End Conflict of Interest in Washington - Elect Doctors, Scientists and Engineers

[JohnMatthews]

Typically when a person stands to gain unwarranted advantage, influence or wealth by participating in an activity from a privileged position, that person should recuse themselves to avoid a potential conflict of interest.

Following this logic, all lawyers should be directly barred from voting for new laws.

Who stands to gain, directly and indirectly, from all forms of legislation, regulation and bureaucracy? Who increases their power and wealth by expanding the power and influence of government at all levels?

You guessed it -> lawyers.

I propose that we can directly advance the causes of individual liberty, freedom and personal responsibility by electing doctors, scientists and engineers to government. Actually, anyone who is not a lawyer will do. If there were a diversity of professions represented in the legislature, then individual members could and should abstain when a conflict of interest would bring undue advantage to their particular profession. When these people's elected terms as public servants expire they can return to gainful employment in the private sector.

What do elected lawyers do when their turns are up? They become lobbyists. Or they are paid to litigate the legal issues arising directly as a consequence of their increases in the powers and responsibilities of government.

I believe that this conflict of interest is the root cause of our ever-expanding, overreaching and coercive government. All lawyers benefit, directly and indirectly, from the passage of new laws. Lawyers in government have an inherent self-interest in increasing government intrusion and regulation through new legislation. The writing of new laws perpetuates and increases the power, wealth and influence of lawyers as a group. This is done to the detriment of all who would be free.

End the conflict of interest. Stop electing lawyers to government!

Some laws benefit everyone.
Some laws benefit a few.
All laws benefit lawyers.
Do all laws benefit you?

 

[hawkeyenick]

They can't perform their jobs if they are in washington all the time, not to mention the major pay decrease.

 

[Ron LOL]

Dude, nobody should be allowed to hold public office by that logic. I'm an engineer. If I pass legislation (I wouldn't as a Ron Paul republican, but let's say I did) that effects engineering licensure or engineering standards, I'd call it a conflict of interest...

 

[JohnMatthews]

the source of the conflict

They can't perform their jobs if they are in washington all the time, not to mention the major pay decrease.

I'm not sure I follow you. Who can't perform their jobs? If they are elected officials, then their jobs are in Washington.

The point is this:

If there were no laws, could lawyers make any money? -> no

If lawyers make more laws, can lawyers make more money? -> yes, hence the conflict of interest.

If anyone other than lawyers make laws, do lawyers make more money? -> yes, but there is no conflict of interest because it is not the lawyers that have made the laws.

 

[free.alive]

Aren't lawyers members of the Royal Bar .... or something to that effect? Don't they typically "earn" the title of "Esquire"?

See the Constitution, Article 1.9.9:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Also, barring lawyers from holding office was the likely intent of the ORIGINAL 13th Amendment, which was is documented in several state volumes before the Civil War, between 1815 and 1860. After the war the current 13th Amendment is the only one to be seen. Interesting.... I believe it is referred to as the "Titles of Nobility Amendment." Here is the text:

" If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such a person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

Look at Michael Badnarik's "Good to Be King" for a better description. That's where I learned about it. He claims the amendment is unnecessary because the Article 1.9.9 is very clear and, if enforced, "American politics would become very interesting indeed."

 

[JohnMatthews]

exactly

Dude, nobody should be allowed to hold public office by that logic. I'm an engineer. If I pass legislation (I wouldn't as a Ron Paul republican, but let's say I did) that effects engineering licensure or engineering standards, I'd call it a conflict of interest...

You are absolutely correct. For that particular piece of legislation, you should recuse yourself to avoid a conflict of interest and let the rest of the legislature make the decision.

The point is that lawyers benefit from the passage of ALL laws. Hence they should recuse themselves from government legislation altogether.

 

[DrZ]

I did some research a while back on all the current presidential candidates and what they did for a living before taking public office. Most of them were lawyers. Some had never held a REAL (nongovernmental) job in their lives. And we wonder why politicians are so out of touch...

DEMOCRATS

Joe Biden - Lawyer
Hillary Clinton - Lawyer
Chris Dodd - Lawyer
John Edwards - Lawyer
Mike Gravel - Real Estate & Various Jobs
Dennis Kucinich - Various Jobs
Barack Obama - Lawyer
Bill Richardson - Government Jobs

REPUBLICANS (alpabetical order)

Rudy Giuliani - Lawyer & US Attorney
Mike Huckabee - Baptist Minister
Duncan Hunter - Lawyer
John McCain - US Navy
Ron Paul - Medical Doctor
Mitt Romney - Businessman
Tom Tancredo - Education & Government Jobs
Fred Thompson - Lawyer & US Attorney & Actor

 

[Fyretrohl]

Want to end 'career' politicians? Pass an Amendment to the Constitution that no elected or appointed member of government can make more than median wage or whatever. Also, place caps on their spending budgets to ensure that they don't abuse the system. Perhaps something like...

Senator/Congressman - $100k per year, normal healtcare plan like you or I can get, no 'retirement' benefit. 401k type plan available according to normal 401k laws <or similar plan>. Senator or Congressman get paid a stipend for a small apartment in the DC area OR we build congressional dorms they can live in. Budget as deemed reasonable by the people.

President - He has the White House, Air Force/Marine One, the shuttle services, etc. So, $150k per year AND he has to pay for his own food. A small 'official' entertainment budget for hosting dignataries, but not to the extravagent level we do today.

Vice President - $125k.

Any other appointed or elected official - Capped at Senator pay.

 

[JohnMatthews]

Want to end 'career' politicians? Pass an Amendment to the Constitution that no elected or appointed member of government can make more than median wage or whatever. Also, place caps on their spending budgets to ensure that they don't abuse the system. Perhaps something like...

Senator/Congressman - $100k per year, normal healtcare plan like you or I can get, no 'retirement' benefit. 401k type plan available according to normal 401k laws <or similar plan>. Senator or Congressman get paid a stipend for a small apartment in the DC area OR we build congressional dorms they can live in. Budget as deemed reasonable by the people.

President - He has the White House, Air Force/Marine One, the shuttle services, etc. So, $150k per year AND he has to pay for his own food. A small 'official' entertainment budget for hosting dignataries, but not to the extravagent level we do today.

Vice President - $125k.

Any other appointed or elected official - Capped at Senator pay.

The only problem with that is it runs contrary to a free-market capitalist society. People should be free to make as much money as they can, both prior to and after serving in public office. The problem is that the very act of legislation creates an economy and need for lawyers. Lawyers in the government can and do collectively legislate their way to guaranteed wealth, job security and power as a group. This strikes me as a blatant abuse of power and a conflict of interest.

 

[akovacs]

Defense spending is welfare for engineers.

There's a huge conflict of interest there. Many scientists also get lots of government money.

It's a nice thought, but I think it's better to make term limits. Limiting pay and benefits if also nice, but it's not the reason why people go into politics. They go into politics because they want to exercise power.

 

[Danny Molina]

Sounds like a meritocracy.

 

[JohnMatthews]

Defense spending is welfare for engineers.

There's a huge conflict of interest there. Many scientists also get lots of government money.

It's a nice thought, but I think it's better to make term limits. Limiting pay and benefits if also nice, but it's not the reason why people go into politics. They go into politics because they want to exercise power.

I agree with your points regarding both scientists and engineers.

I also think that the government has no business subsidizing research, and that defense spending should be drastically scaled back when not in a time of war.

The idea is to have a variety of occupations represented in the legislature. This way, individuals could recuse themselves when legislation affecting their particular industry is under consideration. Since lawyers by definition benefit from the passage of all laws, they have no business participating in the legislature.

The root problem with our expansive and coercive government is that a select group of individuals perpetuates and expands their power and wealth by constantly extending the size and scope of government through increased legislation, regulation and bureaucracy.

 

[Fyretrohl]

The only problem with that is it runs contrary to a free-market capitalist society. People should be free to make as much money as they can, both prior to and after serving in public office. The problem is that the very act of legislation creates an economy and need for lawyers. Lawyers in the government can and do collectively legislate their way to guaranteed wealth, job security and power as a group. This strikes me as a blatant abuse of power and a conflict of interest.

Except, it is we the people putting the cap on it. People should choose to serve as Statesmen to SERVE their country, NOT to get rich. Government, in itself, is not a free market, nor should it be Otherwise, we are suggesting that our laws SHOULD be able to be bought by the highest bidder or the market value. I don't want someone in office because they want to get rich or get some great retirement fund. I want them to do it because they have a love for the country.

I will revert back to my Mormon/LDS teachings. In the Book of Mormon, the 'Good' Kings worked their own fields and labored for their own way. They served their people as part of their labors, not as their ONLY labor. The 'bad' kings and priests preached that they should not have to work, so they could focus on their preaching or leading, and that the people should work to seve them. Novel idea, huh?

Never happen, but, what if statement...If my family were to be in the White House with me as President...

1 - We would have a garden/farm that WE would work to raise our own food.
2 - I would not have a massive 'kitchen' staff for daily use. We would cook our own meals, clean our own area. The 'office' part of the White House would have cleaning staff, like most offices due. But, my house would be just like my house now.
3 - Although the law does not allow it, I would rather to continue to work my normal job and pass on the government check. Of course, I would have to convince my boss for the time off to go over sees as needed. <Yes, I understand the need where this would be issues. This is my ideal situation. >

 

[Proemio]

...

End the conflict of interest. Stop electing lawyers to government!

It's worse, but if you try to talk about it, people's eyes glaze over...

A lawyer is licensed by TheBar. TheBar and the Constitution are incompatible, because TheBar (head office) is a British outfit, something like a 'royal' lodge. Of course, it makes then perfect sense that most 'Representatives of the People' in DC (in fact, anywhere in the FreeWorld®) are lawyers...

Recent example: 'London' decides to bring Butto - whom they hosted 'royally' for all these years - back to Pakistan, because the other guy was starting to go independent. Who started stirring the shit? Lawyers in the streets, right up to Supreme Court judge (lawyer). It's a conflict of interest alright - one oath against another...

What was it again that ticked off the Founders enough to have a revolution?

 

[JohnMatthews]

misunderstanding

Except, it is we the people putting the cap on it. People should choose to serve as Statesmen to SERVE their country, NOT to get rich. Government, in itself, is not a free market, nor should it be Otherwise, we are suggesting that our laws SHOULD be able to be bought by the highest bidder or the market value. I don't want someone in office because they want to get rich or get some great retirement fund. I want them to do it because they have a love for the country.

I will revert back to my Mormon/LDS teachings. In the Book of Mormon, the 'Good' Kings worked their own fields and labored for their own way. They served their people as part of their labors, not as their ONLY labor. The 'bad' kings and priests preached that they should not have to work, so they could focus on their preaching or leading, and that the people should work to seve them. Novel idea, huh?

Never happen, but, what if statement...If my family were to be in the White House with me as President...

1 - We would have a garden/farm that WE would work to raise our own food.
2 - I would not have a massive 'kitchen' staff for daily use. We would cook our own meals, clean our own area. The 'office' part of the White House would have cleaning staff, like most offices due. But, my house would be just like my house now.
3 - Although the law does not allow it, I would rather to continue to work my normal job and pass on the government check. Of course, I would have to convince my boss for the time off to go over sees as needed. <Yes, I understand the need where this would be issues. This is my ideal situation. >

I think I originally misunderstood what you were saying. You suggest financial limits and restrictions while in office, correct? If that is the case then I totally agree with you. I originally thought you were referring to life-long financial restrictions, even after they are out of office, in which case I would have to disagree. Thanks for the input -> and that would be nice!

 

[Fyretrohl]

I think I originally misunderstood what you were saying. You suggest financial limits and restrictions while in office, correct? If that is the case then I totally agree with you. I originally thought you were referring to life-long financial restrictions, even after they are out of office, in which case I would have to disagree. Thanks for the input -> and that would be nice!

Oh no...Not at all. We want them to be enticed to be OUT of politics. That way, the ones who do it are the ones who care and want to serve.

 

[amy31416]

I propose that we can directly advance the causes of individual liberty, freedom and personal responsibility by electing doctors, scientists and engineers to government. Actually, anyone who is not a lawyer will do. When these peoples elected terms as public servants expire they can return to gainful employment in the private sector.

What do elected lawyers do when their turns are up? They become lobbyists. Or they are paid to litigate the legal issues arising directly as a consequence of their increases in the powers and responsibilities of government.

End the conflict of interest. Stop electing lawyers to government!

I'm a scientist and I approve this message!

 

[Mr. White]

It's worse, but if you try to talk about it, people's eyes glaze over...

A lawyer is licensed by TheBar. TheBar and the Constitution are incompatible, because TheBar (head office) is a British outfit, something like a 'royal' lodge. Of course, it makes then perfect sense that most 'Representatives of the People' in DC (in fact, anywhere in the FreeWorld®) are lawyers...

Recent example: 'London' decides to bring Butto - whom they hosted 'royally' for all these years - back to Pakistan, because the other guy was starting to go independent. Who started stirring the shit? Lawyers in the streets, right up to Supreme Court judge (lawyer). It's a conflict of interest alright - one oath against another...

What was it again that ticked off the Founders enough to have a revolution?

I don't know where you guys dig this stuff up... I guess I fall into the 'sane Paul supporter' catagory. Law student by the way, so that should help feed your conspiracy.

 

[JohnMatthews]

borderline troll comment

I don't know where you guys dig this stuff up... I guess I fall into the 'sane Paul supporter' catagory. Law student by the way, so that should help feed your conspiracy.

Do you have anything to contribute to this thread? I am particularly interested in hearing your opinion on these matters seeing as how you are a student of the law. Please don't insult other posters or suggest that they are insane conspiracy theorists.

 

[Dieseler]

I'm not all that smart I will admit
But I would have to think that in order to legislate one would
need a fair bit of Law education.

A better Idea would be to get rid of the lobbyist that are corrupting our Legislators.