Posts Tagged ‘consent of the governed’

Once, in a law class I was attending, the instructor, a lawyer, asked the class what groups had a disproportionate influence on the law.

Predictable responses include: men, Anglo-Europeans, the wealthy, and those with a higher than average number of years of formal education.

Growing bored, I put up my hand and said, “Lawyers,” at which point, the instructor took obvious personal exception with my answer, and asked me to give an example.

I gave the example of the disproportionate number of lawyers who are elected representatives, and, therefore, responsible for drafting, debating, voting on, and oversight of, legislation.

He then proceeded to ask the class what were the reasons for that. Something he curiously found no need to do with all other responses given.

Someone responded by saying that, naturally, lawyers have a disproportionate influence on the law, since they’re “experts” in it.

However, the law holds a special place in our society. Governments exercise their just powers by the consent of the governed, and have a monopoly on the lawful use of organized violence.

Computer programmers also have a disproportionate influence on today’s society, given the increasing importance of technology in all aspects of our lives. However, they aren’t members of a self-regulated profession with special privileges, as lawyers are.

For example, only lawyers can argue in front of the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, the court of last resort.

Given the increasing importance of the law in all aspects of our lives, with the ever-growing reach of government, I believe the disproportionate influence of lawyers on the law deserves increased scrutiny.

Read Full Post »

Researcher Alan Watt was a guest on The Alex Jones Show on Wednesday, October 7, 2009, and made the following claim at 2:42:52:

“They laid out the plan a long time ago when they set up the League of Nations — the forerunner of the United Nations, and in their own charter, eventually they’d ban all private property. They’d also have to eradicate farming because farming was too important to be left to farmers. Big corporations would run the farming of the world.”

By “charter,” he must be referring to the “Covenant of the League of Nations.” In it, I can find no direct or indirect reference to farming whatsoever.

The closest reference I can find relating to private property is the following clause in Article 7:

“The buildings and other property occupied by the League or its officials or by Representatives attending its meetings shall be inviolable.”

The only way private property would be abolished from that is if the League bought up all the land in member nations. While that clause does allow for that possibility, so does the clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Who determines “just compensation” in that case? You guessed it, the government. Yet no one could credibly claim that the Founding Fathers had the intention of abolishing private property, despite that clause. To the contrary, private property was recognized as one of the key requirements of a free society, and therefore was protected with various provisions in the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights.

While the intent of some framers of the League of Nations was clearly of a different philosophical bent than that of the Founding Fathers, in either or any case, no governing body could deprive the people of their private property without the consent of the governed, either by their action or inaction.

Read Full Post »