Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 19 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Congress needs more diversity at the Capitol
Published Thursday, July 3, 2008
Because of the coming elections I have finally gotten to some degree interested in our Congress. This is what I found to some degree somewhat disturbing.
The Congress of the United States comprises the House of Representatives and the Senate. There are 435 Representatives and 100 Senators for a total of 535 members of Congress.
According to a C-Span document, the 110th Congress includes 228 members who hold law degrees and 217 members whose former occupation was in law. Lawyers are the dominant profession in our Congress.
What I find disturbing is that there are not more professions represented in Congress. I would like to see more teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers, farmers, housewives, plumbers, pastors and the list could go on. Why do we need 445 people who are versed in the law to make all of our decisions?
I feel lawyers are necessary for our congress but 445? That leaves just 90 people in Congress that are not versed in law to some degree. That is not, in my opinion a good representation of the people, by the people and for the people.
You might rebuttal and say, “But lawyers are the smartest and most influential people in our society.” I don’t agree with that wholeheartedly. The above professions I mentioned are equally intelligent and as influential as many lawyers.
Then you might say, “But they know how to interpret the laws.” That’s true but that’s only because they have written the laws in their own language. Every time a get a legal document and try to read it I can’t understand it because some lawyer has written it in their language.
“The more laws on the books, the more “need” for lawyerly types. The more obscure and ill-informed a new law is, the more “need” for lawyerly types.”*
With 445 lawyers writing the laws, you know the “new law” will become very complex and will require a whole law firm to parse every word.
Laws can be and should be written so that all people can understand them. Lawyers are good but 445 of them?
*Quote is from “maverickphilospher.com”
Mike Voorhees - Fergus Falls
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would rebuttal and say that lawyers are the people who are best suited to be in our legislature not because they are "the smartest and most influential" or because they "know how to interpret the laws," but because their job is to legislate, or to "make" laws. Who could write laws better than the people who have spent years studying law. The point of view expressed in this letter is like suggesting that there should be more variety in type of people who write novels. Even if the novel happens to be about a doctor's medical practice, does that mean that a doctor would be a good person to write the novel? No. The novelist should write the novel and perhaps consult with someone who is knowledgeable about the practice of medicine. Sorry, but I don't think I would want (or vote for) a teacher or a plumber or a housewife to represent me in our legislature unless they had some experience with understanding or crafting clear and concise laws or regulations of some sort. The language containing in legal documents is that way for a reason and it's so that people can't find ways around it when they're not supposed to and can when they are.
Posted by eripsni (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
COMMON SENSE ALERT: All 217 of the "former lawyers" hold law degrees (part of the 228). By what you are saying with the 445, you are implying that you'd add those who were former lawyers with those who went to law school. Alas, they are nearly one in the same. Therefore, there are at most 228 "lawyers" in Congress.
Here is the mentioned article, if anyone is curious where the "facts" come from: http://www.c-span.org/pdf/110thcongress....
Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ha. Yeah, I kind of suspected that too, but didn't actually check out the article. Good call. : )
Posted by Mel (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To bad that so many of those lawyers don't also have common sence.
Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 11:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I do believe that it is written somewhere that says "government by the people" not by career polititions that happen to be mostly lawyers. Perhaps it is because there happens to be such an excess of lawyers in the US that is the only job they can find.
Posted by 89Heritage (anonymous) on July 4, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lawyers are best suited for legislatures ? How many laws do we need? Because of this country's campaigning system, they are the only ones who can afford to run for offices. They are not suited for anything but taking away rights & turning this country into the mess it is in. The people aren't getting the representation they want because there are no average, common sense, Americans in government anymore. Lawyers & Liberals, The Cancer of America.
Posted by bigkahunaburger (anonymous) on July 6, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps lawyers tend to be smart, analytical people.
Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps more "average, common sense, Americans" (like you, 89Heritage) should run for office? If the American public agrees with you and believes that more "average" people should be running this country, then you will no doubt be elected. However, if the American people (as I suspect) are more likely to vote for people who are highly educated and have a background that might cause them to be better equipped to run our country, chances are you might not fair so well. Either way, I'm sure it would make for some interesting races.
Posted by Dman (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Some folks think a law degree should actually be a requirement for office. GWB is a good example of what happens when a non-lawyer gets in power....
Posted by davieboy (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The reason there isn't more diversity in Congress is Money. Lawyers make a lot more money than the majority of other professions. It takes Millions to run a campaign and "buy"....I mean "get" elected. The average person doesn't stand a chance as they simply don't have that kind of money.
Posted by chirocorlin (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Having commen sense, being smart, honest and trustworthy and doing what is right for the country has nothing to do with what type of degree you have attached to your name. Some of the most wise and successful people that I have meet in my life have only had a 8th grade education. Telling me that all politicians need to be people with law degrees is just plain crazy as Hilary would say it takes a village to raise a child same with our government it should be governed from all aspects and vocations as well as education levels
Posted by 89Heritage (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 5:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks davieboy. That was exactly my point. AmyO, You would'nt like me as Pres. I would reduce government by at least half. The freebies & handouts would end, ecept to those who truley need or deserve them & the people would have alot more say in what this country does & the laws it passes.
Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
First off, the only way people can buy an election is if the voters allow themselves to be bought. Most of the problems we all love to complain about are very seldom solved externally. Most often the solutions lie in our own actions, behaviors and the way we think. Secondly, if "commen sense" and "being honest and trustworthy" was all it took to govern well, I bet Josh down at the JiffyLube would be great at it. However, I think it takes much more than that. Namely, knowledge of topics such as economics, public policy, and yes, perhaps even legal matters. That's not to say that a person with an 8th grade education could not have knowledge of such things, but it's much more likely that a person who has studied such things at an institution of higher education is slightly more knowledgeable about them. Finally, 89Heritage, I don't decide who becomes President (thank god). The American people do. If you truly believe (as you stated earlier) that the American people want more average, common sense American in government, then they will have no problem voting for you and the policies you've listed above. In my opinion, our brilliant citizenry just voted for two full terms of a completely average, (supposedly) common sense, American as our President and that has been an absolute disaster.
Posted by Mel (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Old, but good. How to buy votes.
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The only reason this democracy is changing into a plutocracy is because the rich and powerful are getting into politics to create an environment that benefits themselves at the expense of the hard-working classes.
Bush is an oil man. The entirety of what is going on in Iraq (the nation with the highest oil reserves on earth) has everything to do with Bush and his hand-picked cabinet being from the oil sector of our economy; Cheney was CEO of Haliburton; Condi Rice was on the board of directors at Chevron; Bush's family wealth is hugely intertwined with oil, as well. The list goes on and on.
I think by now we can all come to terms with the fact that Bush's claims of fighting terrorism is a load of hooey. It's all about the oil. He creates terrorism.
Right now there is a security conference being conducted in Iraq. It is a closed-door meeting and the Arab nations are infuriated. There appears to be collaboration between the Iraqi policy-makers and Bush's people on the future of Iraq oil. Oh yeah, there are four oil giants there as well; Total, Chevron Exxon-Mobile, and Shell.
These meetings, prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq, used to be handled through a public bidding process. Do you think there will be any angry 'terrorists' created from these unfair practises? It's like the farce of 'The War On Drugs'. It will become self-fulfilling cycle where the oil barons will continue to profit and claim anyone against it a terrorist.
As for democracy collapsing from people esentially voting themselves raises - not so. Maybe at the government level it can, but not if there were a watchdog organization with teeth that oversaw every politician and monitored their record to see whether their interests were for the betterment of the people (their constituency) as a whole, rather than for themselves and their power-seeking cronies. Then we would know where to lay the blame for our country failing it's mission of 'democracy', and we could then decide what to do about them.
With the advent of computers and mass communications the possibility of our democracy collapsing is highly unlikely. I suppose it could if everyone were cheated from the truth, though. Like if the Fairness Doctrine were repealed and everyone's world view became propagandised by a ruling class. Oh wait, that happened already in the 80's under Reagan. See what's been going on since then?
Posted by chirocorlin (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
AmyO you are so right about having a lawyer who is knowledgeable about the topics being what is best for us to be governed by. In one of the debates with Obama and Clinton they asked both candidates about the capital gains tax. The first question to Obama was why do we have taxes? and he said to raise revenues for financing the government. Then they said to him why do you want to raise that tax to over 20% when history proves that when that rate is low more revenues are generated and when it is raised to over the 20% mark total collected revenues drop. Which of course is the opposite affect of what tax is really meant to do! Obama then went on to say that it is only fair to raise the tax to over 20% regardless of what happens to revenue. So you are so right a common sense person could never understand something as complicated as setting a tax rate for maximum revenues verses based on setting a tax rate based on fairness because after all it is so much more fair for people to pay 20-25% on capital gains tax then to pay 12-15% even though we have diminishing revenues.
Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, sounds like you really know your stuff. I'd be interested to know where and when that exchange actually took place. But what it sounds to me like you are saying is that by citing the fact that one person with a law degree has a differing view point than your own on a single topic, that automatically means that every person with a law degree not only shares that view point that differs from your own, but also, becuase every lawyer's view point differs from your own on that particular topic, said "lawyers" are not "common sense people." Got it, thanks for the clarification.
Posted by chirocorlin (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AmyO don't get carried away now. I heard the conversation in an actual debate between Hilary and Barack it aired on 890 WLS out of chicago and I am just pointing out the opposite is also true you don't need to be a lawyer to legislate I think it takes all kinds of people to govern not just one profession. I know lawyers who are full of truth, common sense and smarts as well as knowing people who don't have any fancy degree that are as equally full of truth, common sense and smarts. I think having one view point that says only lawyers make good politicians or the oppisite saying that no lawyer should be a politician is elitest thinking on either side and I for one would like to see term limits and campign funding limits allowing a more diverse and varying opportunties for more people to govern
Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Democrats won't raise taxes on everyone. They intend to make the ones making over $220,000 (or thereabouts) start paying their fair share. The Republicans have always favored the rich. It started with Reagan. It was called Reaganomics, aka; Supply-Side Economics, and Trickle-Down Theory Economics. What it was supposed to do is ease the tax burden on the rich so as to stimulate the economy because the rich would 'supposedly' invest more in capital, which would increase employment opportunities. I believe that was when the mass exodus of US businesses began because they all looked at their windfall profits and realized they could finally move operations to China or elsewhere, where labor was pennies on the dollar. It was a time when the US started to shift from a manufacturing nation to a service one.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)