Remember the 4th amendment?

And the definition of a "Lawyer" has subtly and yet significantly changed over the years.

Originally, anyone who was well read, understood logic and had gained a knowledge of "the law" by reading it and the initial "case law" that established certain precedents -- could hang out a shingle, and/or later take and pass a "bar exam."

But over the course of time, to become a "lawyer" has meant essentially joining a "union" and to join that union, one typically has to attend and graduate from specific "anointed" universities; and then pass a "bar exam" that focuses much more on trivialities and esoteric points of the now encyclopedic-sized case law. The actual "practice" of law in any locale is now more about knowing the right people and maneuvering through the red-tape thrown up by the local judicial bureaucracy than it is about knowing and applying the underlying PRINCIPLES of the original law.

Personally, I think that the only way to "take it back" is for the people to somehow take back the legal branch from the "lawyers."

Once upon a time judges were chosen because of their integrity and their character -- essentially WISDOM was the primary qualification one looked for. Mature businessmen and farmers could choose to become a "lawyer" somewhat late in life as the need arose. Now, a regular man, no matter how wise, is categorically unable to become a justice -- the legal "union" has effectively grabbed an entire branch of government and made it into a private club, and entry into that private club is so burdensome as to prevent anyone from entering who does not do so as a career choice immediately following their youth.

This means that we do NOT have businessmen, merchants, bankers, farmers, engineers, nor ANYONE who has any "real life" experience who then LATER comes and studies the law. No, instead, we have only youthful "interns" who come to "the law" without any experience in the real world, and are then "indoctrinated" into a special profession, this private club, and forced to look at the rest of the world for the remainder of their lives through its skewed glasses.

If we are to change the courts, we must somehow break the hold that the private "state bars" have upon the profession -- and especially on the judicial positions (there really is no "constitutional" reason for judges to ONLY be lawyers -- this is a minor "regulatory" thing, and one that COULD be overcome by the population at large via Constitutional change.)

Such a change could be one that REQUIRES such positions to be open to nominations and elections from the public at large, and then trust that the public will "vet" the candidates somehow on their knowledge of the ROOTS of the law as more important than the minutiae of precedent. Only then would be begin to see such things as Jury Nullification become widely known and used. Only then would we begin to see the re-establishment of the SPIRIT of the law over and above the "letter" of the minor regulations.

There would be problems along the way, of course; but certainly no greater than the onces we currently experience with the "private club" of relatively "inbred" lawyers and judges that we presently have.

These types of things have happened many times before.

I don't mean to belittle the egregious state that they have reached in certain states (the recent taserings, etc) -- but the history of the United States is replete with "cycles" of this type of thing.

Then certain cases become SO egregious that the public becomes "outraged" and the actions become problematic, the backlash against officials becomes significant, and the attitude by and towards law enforcement officers become counterproductive.

So the pendulum swings back towards the other side.

Unfortunately with each such cycle, the state ends up with MORE power and the violations tend to become more frequent (though less violent overall -- yes even when compared to modern paramilitary "SWAT" teams -- many historical cases were so violent that they send a chill down one's spine.) And likewise each time the pendulum swings back, it tends NOT to swing back as far, so in the course of time we become deeper and deeper in the thrall of the bureaucracy.

Its a theory of mine that ALL societies proceed along this path until some very violent upheaval turns the whole tables over. Really the only case in history of a country slowly gaining freedoms is that of England, from Magna Carta, to the supremacy of Parliament, etc -- and even THAT was not without many very violent upheavals.) While we LIKE to think that America is in some sense "unique" (and certainly the "new world" aspect was somewhat unique in recorded history) in many senses it follows a similar pattern to other civilizations, from the Hebrew tribes, to the Greek city states, to the Roman Republic, to other "republics" down through history; that is that as the society "matured" and became ever more prosperous and populous, the volume, and complexity of "precedence" or as we know it "case law" becomes so voluminous and burdensome that the original law and the "spirit" of the law is gradually lost; the civilization then must "die" and another start up in it's place with a new "clean" or at least "partially clean" slate.

Can such an "upheaval" and "slate cleaning" be done peaceably? OR at least with a minimum of violence? There doesn't seem to be much historical precedent, but we can still hope!

One of my chief concerns is that while we *may* be able to (via the Ron Paul campaign if successful) restrain and "take back some ground" from the FEDERAL government, it is really the State and local governments which are the MOST intrusive in our daily lives and daily loss of freedoms. And the Ron Paul "Revolution" will not free us from ANY of that form of tyranny... indeed, it may lay us open to even MORE egregious forms of it in many of the several states, simply because it would REMOVE the federal "primacy" on the macro level.

Consider which is actually more likely to cause you a problem in your own life... George W. Bush reading your email? Or the local bureaucrat applying some "smart growth" zoning regulations preventing you from running a small business at home?

Surely our outrage at the former is a SOLID, IMPORTANT and LONG-TERM thinking outrage at the loss of overall civil rights. But the local loss is actually MORE tyrannical in our daily lives. The former outrages us in a philosophical and political sense but will probably never touch most of us personally (Alex Jones "Endgame" paranoia aside), the latter tightens a noose around our daily living and our ability to maintain our very livelihood (can you raise chickens in your backyard? If you try will it be the FBI or the local bureaucrat that fines and imprisons you? If a depression comes on, surely raising chickens will become MORE important than whether someone reads your emails.)

Ah, but that is all for another day and another thread...