8 ms·

Legislators should be required to have law degrees. Think about it: they write the laws. How is it a bad thing that they're equipped to know how they'll be inte

Legislators should be required to have law degrees. Think about it: they write the laws. How is it a bad thing that they're equipped to know how they'll be interpreted?

lutusp 14y ago
> Legislators should be required to have law degrees. Yes, and authors should be required to have English degrees before inflicting their opinions on the public, musicians should be required to have music degrees, philosophers should have philosophy degrees, and so forth. In short, people without degrees should have no right to take part in public affairs. Right? If this system were in place, Albert Einstein would not have been allowed to submit his first physics papers for publication. And Abraham Lincoln, regarded as one of our most remarkable presidents, would have been barred from running for office (he had almost no formal education of any kind). Possession of a law degree -- or any degree -- should not be a precondition to take part in public affairs. That's why we have a voting booth -- that's a much better competence filter than a sheepskin. But only if voters are educated and skeptical.
- monochromatic 14y ago
  The difference is that I'm not required to read any particular author's books. Following the laws is more compulsory, and I think legislators should be held to a more rigorous standard.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > I think legislators should be held to a more rigorous standard. There is a long democratic tradition (and politics is as much about tradition as it is about common sense) that says representatives should resemble those they represent. This is why there are two houses of congress -- the house of representatives (aptly named) to accommodate those who think representatives should be ordinary people, and the senate, to accommodate those who think representatives should be a cut above. The founding fathers also deliberately produced multiple branches of government to avoid too much power in too few hands. The senate can't enact legislation without the cooperation of the "lower" house, and vice versa. Just as the founding fathers intended. There is a term for the kind of government you're describing -- "elitism". If history teaches us anything, it is that people who have law degrees aren't better at representing the pubic's interest than those who don't.
    - monochromatic 14y ago
      There's some truth to that, and I don't pretend to have a solution to this difficult question. I remember from earlier posts that you are a lawyer yourself, so I don't need to give you examples of all the poorly drafted laws one comes across. Do you think there's an ideal proportion of lawyers that should be involved in the legislative process?
      - monochromatic 14y ago
        It isn't letting me edit my post, but I think I may have misremembered about you being a lawyer. Oh well.
rogerbinns 14y ago
It would be far better if congress is representative of the people of the country and be composed of doctors, engineers, teachers, taxi drivers, farmers, candlestick makers etc. The legislators do not actually write the laws. They have staff as well as there being a process to help improve the text before legislating (eg publishing drafts). For some legislation (eg covering the financial industry) often the law that is passed just requires a government agency (eg SEC) to come up with the rules. One of Michael Moore's films had a clip of a congressman explaining that they don't even read the legislation they vote on. It is a common claim that much of the legislation is written by lobbyists. And if you actually read any of it, it would obviously not really be what you would expect (short, legible). Here is an example of trying to solve the problem: https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/write-the-laws/ https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/write-the-laws/ The representatives use legislation as a fund raising mechanism (contributions are well documented). For example there were several taxes added temporarily to see if they worked well. They did, but congress doesn't make them permanent. Instead they wait to be paid each time to renew them temporarily again. (This started in the Reagan administration.) See this excellent talk by Lessig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc The whole tax provisions as fund raising is covered at 7m30s. And the corruption is obvious at 25m20s.

Legislators should be required to have law degrees. Think about it: they write the laws. How is it a bad thing that they're equipped to know how they'll be interpreted?

lutusp 14y ago

> Legislators should be required to have law degrees. Yes, and authors should be required to have English degrees before inflicting their opinions on the public, musicians should be required to have music degrees, philosophers should have philosophy degrees, and so forth. In short, people without degrees should have no right to take part in public affairs. Right? If this system were in place, Albert Einstein would not have been allowed to submit his first physics papers for publication. And Abraham Lincoln, regarded as one of our most remarkable presidents, would have been barred from running for office (he had almost no formal education of any kind). Possession of a law degree -- or any degree -- should not be a precondition to take part in public affairs. That's why we have a voting booth -- that's a much better competence filter than a sheepskin. But only if voters are educated and skeptical.

monochromatic 14y ago
The difference is that I'm not required to read any particular author's books. Following the laws is more compulsory, and I think legislators should be held to a more rigorous standard.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > I think legislators should be held to a more rigorous standard. There is a long democratic tradition (and politics is as much about tradition as it is about common sense) that says representatives should resemble those they represent. This is why there are two houses of congress -- the house of representatives (aptly named) to accommodate those who think representatives should be ordinary people, and the senate, to accommodate those who think representatives should be a cut above. The founding fathers also deliberately produced multiple branches of government to avoid too much power in too few hands. The senate can't enact legislation without the cooperation of the "lower" house, and vice versa. Just as the founding fathers intended. There is a term for the kind of government you're describing -- "elitism". If history teaches us anything, it is that people who have law degrees aren't better at representing the pubic's interest than those who don't.
  - monochromatic 14y ago
    There's some truth to that, and I don't pretend to have a solution to this difficult question. I remember from earlier posts that you are a lawyer yourself, so I don't need to give you examples of all the poorly drafted laws one comes across. Do you think there's an ideal proportion of lawyers that should be involved in the legislative process?
    - monochromatic 14y ago
      It isn't letting me edit my post, but I think I may have misremembered about you being a lawyer. Oh well.

rogerbinns 14y ago

It would be far better if congress is representative of the people of the country and be composed of doctors, engineers, teachers, taxi drivers, farmers, candlestick makers etc. The legislators do not actually write the laws. They have staff as well as there being a process to help improve the text before legislating (eg publishing drafts). For some legislation (eg covering the financial industry) often the law that is passed just requires a government agency (eg SEC) to come up with the rules. One of Michael Moore's films had a clip of a congressman explaining that they don't even read the legislation they vote on. It is a common claim that much of the legislation is written by lobbyists. And if you actually read any of it, it would obviously not really be what you would expect (short, legible). Here is an example of trying to solve the problem: https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/write-the-laws/ https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/write-the-laws/ The representatives use legislation as a fund raising mechanism (contributions are well documented). For example there were several taxes added temporarily to see if they worked well. They did, but congress doesn't make them permanent. Instead they wait to be paid each time to renew them temporarily again. (This started in the Reagan administration.) See this excellent talk by Lessig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc The whole tax provisions as fund raising is covered at 7m30s. And the corruption is obvious at 25m20s.