Republicans in Panic?

[bodecea]

General Welfare is in the same sentence as provide a common defense and secure the blessings of liberty.......all are evidently important to the founders

Promoting "General Welfare" does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the constitution. You want to take a vague statement and use it to override a very very clear one.

Again, one could say Gitmo is acceptable under "general welfare", would you agree to that?

No, since Gitmo violates the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. Facilitating health care for all US citizens does fall under the general welfare concept. Consider allowing those exposed to Ebola the rights of liberty of travel?

It takes some common sense to apply the law, even the Law of the Land.

No sorry, General welfare is so vague that is covers everything. You are the one that set the bar.

General Welfare, general welfare, baa baa baaa.

GW is part of the vision statement which is the Preamble to COTUS. I did not set the bar, those who wrote and signed off on the COTUS used the phrase in the Preamble and in clause 1 of sec. 8 in Art. I.

Thus, the Congress has the authority to set the bar for parameters on what is the GW, not you, and such guidelines may include practical applications in the law of what is needed to fulfill the vision the Founders / Signers of the COTUS invisioned centuries ago.

I'm pretty certain that vision did not include the Right of every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a gun capable of firing 45 - 60 RPM (drunks and the insane lived back then too). Just imagine how different the world might be if on July 11, 1804 Hamilton had shown up at the duel armed with a Tec 10 while Burr had the standard dueling pistol.

The people were trusted at the time with the most advanced weapons available at the time. And considering I can't even get a fucking revolver to concealed carry in NYC, your blathering about "scary guns" is moot.

General Welfare bullshit cannot be used to suppress existing defined explicit rights.

I don't find the Preamble of the Constitution and the idea of promoting the General Welfare to be.....bullshit.

 

[JimH52]

Promoting "General Welfare" does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the constitution. You want to take a vague statement and use it to override a very very clear one.

Again, one could say Gitmo is acceptable under "general welfare", would you agree to that?

No, since Gitmo violates the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. Facilitating health care for all US citizens does fall under the general welfare concept. Consider allowing those exposed to Ebola the rights of liberty of travel?

It takes some common sense to apply the law, even the Law of the Land.

No sorry, General welfare is so vague that is covers everything. You are the one that set the bar.

General Welfare, general welfare, baa baa baaa.

GW is part of the vision statement which is the Preamble to COTUS. I did not set the bar, those who wrote and signed off on the COTUS used the phrase in the Preamble and in clause 1 of sec. 8 in Art. I.

Thus, the Congress has the authority to set the bar for parameters on what is the GW, not you, and such guidelines may include practical applications in the law of what is needed to fulfill the vision the Founders / Signers of the COTUS invisioned centuries ago.

I'm pretty certain that vision did not include the Right of every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a gun capable of firing 45 - 60 RPM (drunks and the insane lived back then too). Just imagine how different the world might be if on July 11, 1804 Hamilton had shown up at the duel armed with a Tec 10 while Burr had the standard dueling pistol.

The people were trusted at the time with the most advanced weapons available at the time. And considering I can't even get a fucking revolver to concealed carry in NYC, your blathering about "scary guns" is moot.

General Welfare bullshit cannot be used to suppress existing defined explicit rights.

I don't find the Preamble of the Constitution and the idea of promoting the General Welfare to be.....bullshit.

If only the GOP could restore the Wild West. Then everyone could have a six shooter hanging on their side.

 

[Skylar]

Still no reason to end my RKBA. Either do something to fix the "nutters" or do something to catch people who have guns illegally. It's not my job to make it easier on government by giving up my 2nd amendment rights.

yebbut, everytime anyone remotely wants to make it harder for nuts to get guns you have a hissy fit.

Because everything you propose makes it harder on mostly law abiding citizens, not the people you are supposedly trying to target.

Again, when I get my CCW rights back in NYC, then we can talk, until then, Ni shagu nazad!

Here's an easy one: background checks. If the feds don't respond in three days, you get your gun, no questions asked. Hire more feds to respond or give them more than three days to respond.

Again, until I get my rights back, Fuck any new laws.

you haven't lost any rights. but feel free to bring a federal litigation and take it up to the supreme court if you think you have.

Marty is complaining about 'losing rights'? The same 'Let's shit on liberty' soul who argued, straight faced....that the federal government isn't required to protect, recognize or be limited by the rights of the people? The same soul that made up imaginary 'enumeration requirements' for rights, where unless a right is explicitly written down in the constitution, it isn't protected?

That Marty? One of the most anti-rights, pro government power posters on this board.....is lamenting about losing his rights?

 

[martybegan]

Wrong again. As I said I have no issue with the end result of SSM being legal, I just don't see it as a federal constitutional issue. Same with Abortion, I have no desire to ban it beyond what is current law, i.e. Third Trimester restrictions, but I don't see any right to it in the Constitution.

Unlike you, I separate what I want to see happen, and how it should be attained.

equal protection is ALWAYS a federal issue. that way the states can't treat people like animals because of their race, religion or sexuality.

or do you forget that it took federal troops to integrate the south.

see, you and I see eye to eye on some issues, but your grasp of the role of the supreme court is nonexistent.

Systemic, government mandated discrimination was unconstitutional, and the courts acted rightly to end it. Considering they were the ones to fuck it up in the first place with plessey, they owed us the fix.

Systemic, government mandated forcing of people to participate in things they don't want to is just as bad as government mandated discrimination. that's the concept you refuse to grasp.

A distinction with a difference.is something an ideologue can't grasp, and a pragmatist does. Separate but equal was the law for half a century, separate but unequal was the practice enforced by the many for centuries.

That separate but equal was not equal is not in dispute. That the practice when mandated by the government and systemic was unconstitutional is not in dispute.

What I dispute is the need to ruin someone over a baked or unbaked cake, and calling it moral or righteous, or even constitutional.

the high court decides what is constitutional. you do not.

I think it is unconstitutional for hobby lobby to impose it's religious beliefs on its workers. the court says it isn't.

that's life. the court wins.

i'm confused as to why you don't understand that is the basis for our entire legal system.

The high court can be wrong. You seem to think I have no right to say they are wrong.

The issue is the court is overstepping its bounds, and has been for about 30 years now.

 

[martybegan]

I've decided I have a right to whip my dick around in public! The 9th amendment lets me do it!!!!!

As long as you don't hassle someone with it I don't really see a problem. Have at it. Put it on youtube! It will be a riot

I would get charged with public indecency. But the 9th amendment says I have the right to!!!!!

So challenge that law as well. You sure whine about your rights but you aren't willing to do anything about them. Waiting for someone else to help you?

There are lawsuits aplenty out there already. The point is I shouldn't have to fight it, the people in government should know better.

that isn't how it works.

it should be how it works.

 

[jillian]

equal protection is ALWAYS a federal issue. that way the states can't treat people like animals because of their race, religion or sexuality.

or do you forget that it took federal troops to integrate the south.

see, you and I see eye to eye on some issues, but your grasp of the role of the supreme court is nonexistent.

Systemic, government mandated discrimination was unconstitutional, and the courts acted rightly to end it. Considering they were the ones to fuck it up in the first place with plessey, they owed us the fix.

Systemic, government mandated forcing of people to participate in things they don't want to is just as bad as government mandated discrimination. that's the concept you refuse to grasp.

A distinction with a difference.is something an ideologue can't grasp, and a pragmatist does. Separate but equal was the law for half a century, separate but unequal was the practice enforced by the many for centuries.

That separate but equal was not equal is not in dispute. That the practice when mandated by the government and systemic was unconstitutional is not in dispute.

What I dispute is the need to ruin someone over a baked or unbaked cake, and calling it moral or righteous, or even constitutional.

the high court decides what is constitutional. you do not.

I think it is unconstitutional for hobby lobby to impose it's religious beliefs on its workers. the court says it isn't.

that's life. the court wins.

i'm confused as to why you don't understand that is the basis for our entire legal system.

The high court can be wrong. You seem to think I have no right to say they are wrong.

The issue is the court is overstepping its bounds, and has been for about 30 years now.

and when it is wrong, it often reverses itself in later decisions.

but it isn't you who decides it's wrong.

 

[martybegan]

No, since Gitmo violates the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. Facilitating health care for all US citizens does fall under the general welfare concept. Consider allowing those exposed to Ebola the rights of liberty of travel?

It takes some common sense to apply the law, even the Law of the Land.

No sorry, General welfare is so vague that is covers everything. You are the one that set the bar.

General Welfare, general welfare, baa baa baaa.

GW is part of the vision statement which is the Preamble to COTUS. I did not set the bar, those who wrote and signed off on the COTUS used the phrase in the Preamble and in clause 1 of sec. 8 in Art. I.

Thus, the Congress has the authority to set the bar for parameters on what is the GW, not you, and such guidelines may include practical applications in the law of what is needed to fulfill the vision the Founders / Signers of the COTUS invisioned centuries ago.

I'm pretty certain that vision did not include the Right of every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a gun capable of firing 45 - 60 RPM (drunks and the insane lived back then too). Just imagine how different the world might be if on July 11, 1804 Hamilton had shown up at the duel armed with a Tec 10 while Burr had the standard dueling pistol.

your interpretation, as with most of your observations about the constitution simply aren't supported by well, anything.

Are you talking to me, or wry, or both?

you marty. i'm sorry, but you're so off base on this.

No, I am not.

 

[Wry Catcher]

General Welfare is in the same sentence as provide a common defense and secure the blessings of liberty.......all are evidently important to the founders

Promoting "General Welfare" does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the constitution. You want to take a vague statement and use it to override a very very clear one.

Again, one could say Gitmo is acceptable under "general welfare", would you agree to that?

No, since Gitmo violates the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. Facilitating health care for all US citizens does fall under the general welfare concept. Consider allowing those exposed to Ebola the rights of liberty of travel?

It takes some common sense to apply the law, even the Law of the Land.

No sorry, General welfare is so vague that is covers everything. You are the one that set the bar.

General Welfare, general welfare, baa baa baaa.

GW is part of the vision statement which is the Preamble to COTUS. I did not set the bar, those who wrote and signed off on the COTUS used the phrase in the Preamble and in clause 1 of sec. 8 in Art. I.

Thus, the Congress has the authority to set the bar for parameters on what is the GW, not you, and such guidelines may include practical applications in the law of what is needed to fulfill the vision the Founders / Signers of the COTUS invisioned centuries ago.

I'm pretty certain that vision did not include the Right of every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a gun capable of firing 45 - 60 RPM (drunks and the insane lived back then too). Just imagine how different the world might be if on July 11, 1804 Hamilton had shown up at the duel armed with a Tec 10 while Burr had the standard dueling pistol.

your interpretation, as with most of your observations about the constitution simply aren't supported by well, anything.

I offer only my thoughts on these issues based on reading the original documents and applying the words with historical books (generally biographies) of American leaders before, during and after the Revolution and the courses I took in my double major (US Hist. and Poli Sci), + 32 year career in law enforcement.

While the concept of a Vision Statement is new, do you dispute that the Preamble is not one? Who can tell what each of the Signers of COTUS believed the term general Welfare meant as they penned their name on the Document?

If there is a record of their thoughts, post it, I'm open to learning new things.

Put on your thinking hat, and tell me what the world will look like two + centuries from now? You cannot know, nor could those who lived and died before telephones, cars, Jet aircraft and small arms able to kill a dozen and more in a minute existed, or were even conceived by that generation.

 

[jillian]

As long as you don't hassle someone with it I don't really see a problem. Have at it. Put it on youtube! It will be a riot

I would get charged with public indecency. But the 9th amendment says I have the right to!!!!!

So challenge that law as well. You sure whine about your rights but you aren't willing to do anything about them. Waiting for someone else to help you?

There are lawsuits aplenty out there already. The point is I shouldn't have to fight it, the people in government should know better.

that isn't how it works.

it should be how it works.

no. it really shouldn't. who gets to decide they're wrong, marty? me? you? you wouldn't like my decisions on the issue, but at least mine would be consistent with stare decisis.

 

[jillian]

No sorry, General welfare is so vague that is covers everything. You are the one that set the bar.

General Welfare, general welfare, baa baa baaa.

GW is part of the vision statement which is the Preamble to COTUS. I did not set the bar, those who wrote and signed off on the COTUS used the phrase in the Preamble and in clause 1 of sec. 8 in Art. I.

Thus, the Congress has the authority to set the bar for parameters on what is the GW, not you, and such guidelines may include practical applications in the law of what is needed to fulfill the vision the Founders / Signers of the COTUS invisioned centuries ago.

I'm pretty certain that vision did not include the Right of every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a gun capable of firing 45 - 60 RPM (drunks and the insane lived back then too). Just imagine how different the world might be if on July 11, 1804 Hamilton had shown up at the duel armed with a Tec 10 while Burr had the standard dueling pistol.

your interpretation, as with most of your observations about the constitution simply aren't supported by well, anything.

Are you talking to me, or wry, or both?

you marty. i'm sorry, but you're so off base on this.

No, I am not.

I could go on and on saying yes you are, but i'm not going to do that. but do you really think you have any kind of grasp of our legal system when you don't indicate any understanding of how it works and don't like how it works?

 

[martybegan]

yebbut, everytime anyone remotely wants to make it harder for nuts to get guns you have a hissy fit.

Because everything you propose makes it harder on mostly law abiding citizens, not the people you are supposedly trying to target.

Again, when I get my CCW rights back in NYC, then we can talk, until then, Ni shagu nazad!

Here's an easy one: background checks. If the feds don't respond in three days, you get your gun, no questions asked. Hire more feds to respond or give them more than three days to respond.

Again, until I get my rights back, Fuck any new laws.

you haven't lost any rights. but feel free to bring a federal litigation and take it up to the supreme court if you think you have.

Marty is complaining about 'losing rights'? The same 'Let's shit on liberty' soul who argued, straight faced....that the federal government isn't required to protect, recognize or be limited by the rights of the people? The same soul that made up imaginary 'enumeration requirements' for rights, where unless a right is explicitly written down in the constitution, it isn't protected?

That Marty? One of the most anti-rights, pro government power posters on this board.....is lamenting about losing his rights?

Where the hell have I been posting pro government, anti-rights stuff? Is it because I simply don't see the need to ruin someone via government action because they don't want to bake a cake for a wedding? In that example YOU are anti-rights, pro government.

My view is government is best done as locally as possible, and constrained by the concepts of strict construction and federalism, coupled with a libertarian view on how much government should get involved in people's lives.

You are confusing my support of federalism with support of big government.

 

[jillian]

Promoting "General Welfare" does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the constitution. You want to take a vague statement and use it to override a very very clear one.

Again, one could say Gitmo is acceptable under "general welfare", would you agree to that?

No, since Gitmo violates the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. Facilitating health care for all US citizens does fall under the general welfare concept. Consider allowing those exposed to Ebola the rights of liberty of travel?

It takes some common sense to apply the law, even the Law of the Land.

No sorry, General welfare is so vague that is covers everything. You are the one that set the bar.

General Welfare, general welfare, baa baa baaa.

GW is part of the vision statement which is the Preamble to COTUS. I did not set the bar, those who wrote and signed off on the COTUS used the phrase in the Preamble and in clause 1 of sec. 8 in Art. I.

Thus, the Congress has the authority to set the bar for parameters on what is the GW, not you, and such guidelines may include practical applications in the law of what is needed to fulfill the vision the Founders / Signers of the COTUS invisioned centuries ago.

I'm pretty certain that vision did not include the Right of every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a gun capable of firing 45 - 60 RPM (drunks and the insane lived back then too). Just imagine how different the world might be if on July 11, 1804 Hamilton had shown up at the duel armed with a Tec 10 while Burr had the standard dueling pistol.

your interpretation, as with most of your observations about the constitution simply aren't supported by well, anything.

I offer only my thoughts on these issues based on reading the original documents and applying the words with historical books (generally biographies) of American leaders before, during and after the Revolution and the courses I took in my double major (US Hist. and Poli Sci), + 32 year career in law enforcement.

While the concept of a Vision Statement is new, do you dispute that the Preamble is not one? Who can tell what each of the Signers of COTUS believed the term general Welfare meant as they penned their name on the Document?

If there is a record of their thoughts, post it, I'm open to learning new things.

Put on your thinking hat, and tell me what the world will look like two + centuries from now? You cannot know, nor could those who lived and died before telephones, cars, Jet aircraft and small arms able to kill a dozen and more in a minute existed, or were even conceived by that generation.

i'm sorry, I wasn't commenting on you having a lack of understanding. my post probably wasn't clear since marty asked it about it, too.

 

[martybegan]

GW is part of the vision statement which is the Preamble to COTUS. I did not set the bar, those who wrote and signed off on the COTUS used the phrase in the Preamble and in clause 1 of sec. 8 in Art. I.

Thus, the Congress has the authority to set the bar for parameters on what is the GW, not you, and such guidelines may include practical applications in the law of what is needed to fulfill the vision the Founders / Signers of the COTUS invisioned centuries ago.

I'm pretty certain that vision did not include the Right of every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a gun capable of firing 45 - 60 RPM (drunks and the insane lived back then too). Just imagine how different the world might be if on July 11, 1804 Hamilton had shown up at the duel armed with a Tec 10 while Burr had the standard dueling pistol.

your interpretation, as with most of your observations about the constitution simply aren't supported by well, anything.

Are you talking to me, or wry, or both?

you marty. i'm sorry, but you're so off base on this.

No, I am not.

I could go on and on saying yes you are, but i'm not going to do that. but do you really think you have any kind of grasp of our legal system when you don't indicate any understanding of how it works and don't like how it works?

It's less about understanding how it currently works, and more about how it should work. There is a saying that the law has been ruined by lawyers, and I happen to agree with that wholeheartedly.

 

[Skylar]

No sorry, General welfare is so vague that is covers everything. You are the one that set the bar.

General Welfare, general welfare, baa baa baaa.

GW is part of the vision statement which is the Preamble to COTUS. I did not set the bar, those who wrote and signed off on the COTUS used the phrase in the Preamble and in clause 1 of sec. 8 in Art. I.

Thus, the Congress has the authority to set the bar for parameters on what is the GW, not you, and such guidelines may include practical applications in the law of what is needed to fulfill the vision the Founders / Signers of the COTUS invisioned centuries ago.

I'm pretty certain that vision did not include the Right of every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a gun capable of firing 45 - 60 RPM (drunks and the insane lived back then too). Just imagine how different the world might be if on July 11, 1804 Hamilton had shown up at the duel armed with a Tec 10 while Burr had the standard dueling pistol.

your interpretation, as with most of your observations about the constitution simply aren't supported by well, anything.

Are you talking to me, or wry, or both?

you marty. i'm sorry, but you're so off base on this.

No, I am not.

Oh, Julian...its far worse than you think. Marty believes that the 2nd amendment includes military full auto rifles, even M-249 machine guns that can put a bullet through the engine block of a car and fires at a rate of 725 rounds per minute.

That anyone should be able to buy.

I think we can all take a collective breath of relief that the meaningless standard of 'Marty citing Marty' has no particular relevance to the world that we live in.

 

[martybegan]

I would get charged with public indecency. But the 9th amendment says I have the right to!!!!!

So challenge that law as well. You sure whine about your rights but you aren't willing to do anything about them. Waiting for someone else to help you?

There are lawsuits aplenty out there already. The point is I shouldn't have to fight it, the people in government should know better.

that isn't how it works.

it should be how it works.

no. it really shouldn't. who gets to decide they're wrong, marty? me? you? you wouldn't like my decisions on the issue, but at least mine would be consistent with stare decisis.

Once again you just go running back to "what someone else said" instead of thinking for yourself.

 

[martybegan]

GW is part of the vision statement which is the Preamble to COTUS. I did not set the bar, those who wrote and signed off on the COTUS used the phrase in the Preamble and in clause 1 of sec. 8 in Art. I.

Thus, the Congress has the authority to set the bar for parameters on what is the GW, not you, and such guidelines may include practical applications in the law of what is needed to fulfill the vision the Founders / Signers of the COTUS invisioned centuries ago.

I'm pretty certain that vision did not include the Right of every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a gun capable of firing 45 - 60 RPM (drunks and the insane lived back then too). Just imagine how different the world might be if on July 11, 1804 Hamilton had shown up at the duel armed with a Tec 10 while Burr had the standard dueling pistol.

your interpretation, as with most of your observations about the constitution simply aren't supported by well, anything.

Are you talking to me, or wry, or both?

you marty. i'm sorry, but you're so off base on this.

No, I am not.

Oh, Julian...its far worse than you think. Marty believes that the 2nd amendment includes military full auto rifles, even M-249 machine guns that can put a bullet through the engine block of a car and fires at a rate of 725 rounds per minute.

That anyone should be able to buy.

I think we can all take a collective breath of relief that the meaningless standard of 'Marty citing Marty' has no particular relevance to the world that we live in.

If someone owns one of those and never uses it to harm you or anyone else, where is the crime?

Again, SAWs and full rock and rolll examples are just strawmen, you don't want people to even have revolvers, so your argumentum ad abusrdum is moot.

 

[jillian]

your interpretation, as with most of your observations about the constitution simply aren't supported by well, anything.

Are you talking to me, or wry, or both?

you marty. i'm sorry, but you're so off base on this.

No, I am not.

I could go on and on saying yes you are, but i'm not going to do that. but do you really think you have any kind of grasp of our legal system when you don't indicate any understanding of how it works and don't like how it works?

It's less about understanding how it currently works, and more about how it should work. There is a saying that the law has been ruined by lawyers, and I happen to agree with that wholeheartedly.

but it's not about how YOU think it should work versus what I might think. it's about how it actually worked and has worked for centuries.

I've never heard anyone say the law is ruined by lawyers. and i'd much rather lawyers deal with these issues than people who think it should be made over in their own image when that image doesn't even know what a common law legal system is.

 

[jillian]

So challenge that law as well. You sure whine about your rights but you aren't willing to do anything about them. Waiting for someone else to help you?

There are lawsuits aplenty out there already. The point is I shouldn't have to fight it, the people in government should know better.

that isn't how it works.

it should be how it works.

no. it really shouldn't. who gets to decide they're wrong, marty? me? you? you wouldn't like my decisions on the issue, but at least mine would be consistent with stare decisis.

Once again you just go running back to "what someone else said" instead of thinking for yourself.

that's what a common law system IS, Marty... and exactly why you have no business making these determinations. I may not agree with a lot of the court's decisions right now, but at least I know they know how it works.

 

[martybegan]

Systemic, government mandated discrimination was unconstitutional, and the courts acted rightly to end it. Considering they were the ones to fuck it up in the first place with plessey, they owed us the fix.

Systemic, government mandated forcing of people to participate in things they don't want to is just as bad as government mandated discrimination. that's the concept you refuse to grasp.

A distinction with a difference.is something an ideologue can't grasp, and a pragmatist does. Separate but equal was the law for half a century, separate but unequal was the practice enforced by the many for centuries.

That separate but equal was not equal is not in dispute. That the practice when mandated by the government and systemic was unconstitutional is not in dispute.

What I dispute is the need to ruin someone over a baked or unbaked cake, and calling it moral or righteous, or even constitutional.

the high court decides what is constitutional. you do not.

I think it is unconstitutional for hobby lobby to impose it's religious beliefs on its workers. the court says it isn't.

that's life. the court wins.

i'm confused as to why you don't understand that is the basis for our entire legal system.

The high court can be wrong. You seem to think I have no right to say they are wrong.

The issue is the court is overstepping its bounds, and has been for about 30 years now.

and when it is wrong, it often reverses itself in later decisions.

but it isn't you who decides it's wrong.

The problem is no one can really decide if they are wrong except themselves, or going through the amendment process, which is what should have been done for all of these cases where the court decides to legislate from the bench.

We are approaching the point of "who watches the watchers".

 

[martybegan]

There are lawsuits aplenty out there already. The point is I shouldn't have to fight it, the people in government should know better.

that isn't how it works.

it should be how it works.

no. it really shouldn't. who gets to decide they're wrong, marty? me? you? you wouldn't like my decisions on the issue, but at least mine would be consistent with stare decisis.

Once again you just go running back to "what someone else said" instead of thinking for yourself.

that's what a common law system IS, Marty... and exactly why you have no business making these determinations. I may not agree with a lot of the court's decisions right now, but at least I know they know how it works.

When it is used to clarify, yes, when it is used to make new law, it is wrong. Our system lets legislatures make new law, not 5 of 9 unelected lawyers.