Friday, July 20, 2007

A Modest Proposal, Sorry J. Swift

We have a problem in America, we can't get anything done. The only way to file taxes, without being in severe danger of being "got" by the IRS is to file the short form, there are so many different addendums to the tax laws that anyone not taking the standard deductions is in danger. Every year we get the news stories about calling the IRS for tax advice and some large percentage is always wrong. Worse, the IRS isn't even required to come flip cigarette buts through the bars to you if you get jacked up over their advice.

The Government asks us to report suspicious behavior yet the Congress has just rejected the "no sue" provision. So, the "flying Imams" have sued everyone in sight, Congress thinks this is okay. So the next time, and there will be a next time, will a bunch of oddball folks succeed in scaring everyone half to death, without reprisal? What if the Imams WERE really a dry run?

No one, even lawyers understands the laws. Worse, lawyers have messed up things written in plain English. The United States of America has a Constitution, written in plain, although somewhat obsolete, English. This Constitution gives certain powers to the Congress, certain powers to the Executive Branch and certain powers to the Judicial Branch. The Constitution also forbids the Government from a whole bunch of things that it is doing, right now.

Nowhere, for instance, does the Constitution give any role for the Federal Government for education. None. Now I think everyone ought to be education at least to reading, writing and 'rithmatic but the Feds should butt out.

I am not sure, having never been to law school, but there seems to be a syllabus in those schools in ignoring plain English. A couple of examples...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Someone please explain how we get things like the recurring "fairness doctrine" out of that. Or McCain Feingold. How about no baby Jesus at Christmas. A country that is some ninety percent Christian and we lack the ability to put up a manger scene, yet our schools are filled with examples of anti-Christian activity. Something is wrong.

Another example?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This seems pretty clear, it doesn't say the right of the National Guard, it doesn't say with the proper permits, it doesn't say after being checked by the ATF, it doesn't say after the waiting period, it says "shall not be infringed".

So, where do we get waiting periods? Where do we get not being able to write, or say that McCain and Feingold are scumbags of the worst order sixty days before the election? Here is a question, if the Constitution says Congress shall make no law about religion, how do the Federal Courts get involved? If Congress can make no law, how does a Federal court get involved? The clear meaning of the Constitution is that the Federal Government should butt out of religion. Period. Especially since many of the States DID have established religions back then. The proper thing for the Federal Court to do would be to say, "we have no jurisdiction, read the Constitution". The Tenth Amendment is pretty clear, if the power doesn't belong to the Feds, it belongs to State or Local Governments, or to the people, that's us. Now I don't need a bunch of lawyers on the Supreme Court telling me that the Constitution permits McCain Feingold. I haven't been to law school so I can still read English.I don't need Ted Kennedy telling me that my guns should be regulated, my guns have killed fewer people than his driving. My guns have stolen far less money that his programs.

Here is my proposal, it's a two parter:

Part One. Close half the law schools. Most of the folks going into law schools are fairly bright, let them enter industry where they can do some good.

Part Two. No lawyers in any branch of Government. Let ordinary people write the laws. Let ordinary people run the courts. If an ordinary, educated human being can't understand a law, send it back to the legislature. Here we have a case where a feller got fired from his job and evicted from his office, IN CANADA, and a Federal Prosecutor in Chicago, USA gets a conviction for obstruction of justice. Excuse me? Someone please explain to me, in simple words, what in the everlovin' blue eyed world gives him the power to convict someone for an act in Canada? Isn't that like some kind of act of war? Last I looked, Canada had it's own laws. I looked at my copy of the Constitution again, had to to get the exact wording of those Amendments and, although it was just a quick glance I saw nothing there about hew a Federal Prosecutor has the power to bust someone for following Canadian law in Canada.

I'm not quite to the point where I like the idea of "First kill all the lawyers", that seems somewhat harsh. We do, however, have too many, doing too much. That's the problem, we have all these lawyers and only so many horse thieves. Each lawyer wants to make a living. So, since there aren't enough horse thieves that need defending they have to sue someone. Or, worse, get elected so they can write a law so complicated that not even other lawyers can understand it.

Don't get me wrong, we need lawyers. Trouble is, just as too many cooks spoil the broth, too many lawyers spoil the laws.

No comments: