You have the right to remain silent. Everything you say can and will be used against you.

[Stormy Daniels]

You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.

The constitution protects the right to be represented by counsel. This means that, contrary to claims by the media, journalists are not the only profession protected by the constitution. Being an attorney is also protected by the constitution. After all, you can't have an attorney if there are no attorneys.

But lawyers are expensive. Like most other things, that's mostly caused by supply and demand. If there were more lawyers, competition would help to drive the prices down, which would be better for consumers and better protect your constitutional right to counsel.

The main problem here is that being a lawyer is regulated. You have to have a license, which can only be obtained based on very high standards. Much like the medical industry, the licensing and training requirements are first and foremost a mechanism to restrict the number of people entering practice, leaving behind a deficit of supply, therefore ensuring the trade remains a highly paid one.

It's basically a statutorily sanctioned cartel that directly infringes upon constitutional protections. How do conservatives tolerate this? Not only is this a case of too much government, it flies in the face of the basic precepts of conservative thinking about gun rights. If it's constitutional for states to require a license to practice law, then that implies that states can require a license to own a gun.

 

[Moonglow]

The USA has one lawyer for every 300 people..The fee is not based on the number of lawyers but the amount of monthly student loan payments..

 

[DGS49]

1. You don't get a "license" to practice law from the Government. You get it from the State Bar Association. You don't NEED an attorney for anything. You can sue someone without an attorney, you can defend yourself, you can file complaints and petitions. In most cases, the "how to" aspect can be covered by research that any literate person with enough time can accomplish.

2. There are way too many attorneys already, and our law schools are pumping them out as though there were a critical shortage. But the glut doesn't seem to be lowering attorneys' fees.

3. The "right" to have an attorney only applies to criminal defense situations, and it is instructional that where it is actually a "right," the government MUST have the resources to provide it. So consider that when discussing the fictitious "right to adequate healthcare." If it were a "right". (which it is NOT), then Government would have to employ the practitioners to provide it (as well as the facilities).

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.

The constitution protects the right to be represented by counsel. This means that, contrary to claims by the media, journalists are not the only profession protected by the constitution. Being an attorney is also protected by the constitution. After all, you can't have an attorney if there are no attorneys.

But lawyers are expensive. Like most other things, that's mostly caused by supply and demand. If there were more lawyers, competition would help to drive the prices down

Oh please. We are literally awash in lawyers. They charge what they want because the system is gamed to their benefit.

 

[joaquinmiller]

1. You don't get a "license" to practice law from the Government. You get it from the State Bar Association. You don't NEED an attorney for anything. You can sue someone without an attorney, you can defend yourself, you can file complaints and petitions. In most cases, the "how to" aspect can be covered by research that any literate person with enough time can accomplish.

2. There are way too many attorneys already, and our law schools are pumping them out as though there were a critical shortage. But the glut doesn't seem to be lowering attorneys' fees.

3. The "right" to have an attorney only applies to criminal defense situations, and it is instructional that where it is actually a "right," the government MUST have the resources to provide it. So consider that when discussing the fictitious "right to adequate healthcare." If it were a "right". (which it is NOT), then Government would have to employ the practitioners to provide it (as well as the facilities).

The State Bar Association, or State Bar, is usually an agency of State government.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Stormy you have a great lawyer now, but tell us about your previous lawyer Keith Davidson who says its a coincidence he represented you, Karen McDougal, and the playmate Broidy was boinkin. Seems Michael Cohen represented Trump and Broidy in these cases. Doesn't it look like Cohen and Davidson were working together in some capacity. I mean it's an awfully strong coincidence. Pretty unethical, they should be disbarred at least probably.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.

The constitution protects the right to be represented by counsel. This means that, contrary to claims by the media, journalists are not the only profession protected by the constitution. Being an attorney is also protected by the constitution. After all, you can't have an attorney if there are no attorneys.

But lawyers are expensive. Like most other things, that's mostly caused by supply and demand. If there were more lawyers, competition would help to drive the prices down, which would be better for consumers and better protect your constitutional right to counsel.

The main problem here is that being a lawyer is regulated. You have to have a license, which can only be obtained based on very high standards. Much like the medical industry, the licensing and training requirements are first and foremost a mechanism to restrict the number of people entering practice, leaving behind a deficit of supply, therefore ensuring the trade remains a highly paid one.

It's basically a statutorily sanctioned cartel that directly infringes upon constitutional protections. How do conservatives tolerate this? Not only is this a case of too much government, it flies in the face of the basic precepts of conservative thinking about gun rights. If it's constitutional for states to require a license to practice law, then that implies that states can require a license to own a gun.

This is basically nonsense.

When have ‘the media’ collectively claimed that journalists alone are entitled to constitutional protections.

The Sixth Amendment also guarantees a right to counsel if one cannot afford to be represented; the issue isn’t the cost of becoming a lawyer, the amount of education required, or licensing requirements, but the failure of states and local jurisdictions to invest in public defenders – poor or inadequate representation is the same as denying a citizen his right to counsel.

Moreover, conservatives don’t have a problem with this because most couldn’t care less if poor and low-income defendants can’t afford competent representation.

And neither licensing requirements for lawyers nor licensing requirements for firearms violates the Constitution.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

When have ‘the media’ collectively claimed that journalists alone are entitled to constitutional protections.

Collectively? I guess they've never done it "collectively." I don't think there is any kind of entity that speaks for all of the American media. Don't think they're in the habit of having a yearly Christmas party and singing kumbaya either.

But I've seen a handful of cable news journalists and pundits make the claim that journalism is the only profession protected by the constitution. Often, but not always, is said in conjunction with a claim that the media is a "fourth branch of government."

 

[BlackSand]

Graduating law school and passing the bar doesn't mean you are a good lawyer.
Passing the bar simply means you have met the minimum requirements to practice law in that state.

.

 

[Dragonlady]

1. You don't get a "license" to practice law from the Government. You get it from the State Bar Association. You don't NEED an attorney for anything. You can sue someone without an attorney, you can defend yourself, you can file complaints and petitions. In most cases, the "how to" aspect can be covered by research that any literate person with enough time can accomplish.

2. There are way too many attorneys already, and our law schools are pumping them out as though there were a critical shortage. But the glut doesn't seem to be lowering attorneys' fees.

3. The "right" to have an attorney only applies to criminal defense situations, and it is instructional that where it is actually a "right," the government MUST have the resources to provide it. So consider that when discussing the fictitious "right to adequate healthcare." If it were a "right". (which it is NOT), then Government would have to employ the practitioners to provide it (as well as the facilities).

The State Bar Association, or State Bar, is usually an agency of State government.

No it’s not. It’s more like a lawyers union than a state agency. Lawyers are self-regulating. When a lawyer is convicted of a crime, he/she then faces disbarment by the bar association. This is separate and apart from punishment meted out by the governing jurisdiction.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

1. You don't get a "license" to practice law from the Government. You get it from the State Bar Association. You don't NEED an attorney for anything. You can sue someone without an attorney, you can defend yourself, you can file complaints and petitions. In most cases, the "how to" aspect can be covered by research that any literate person with enough time can accomplish.

2. There are way too many attorneys already, and our law schools are pumping them out as though there were a critical shortage. But the glut doesn't seem to be lowering attorneys' fees.

3. The "right" to have an attorney only applies to criminal defense situations, and it is instructional that where it is actually a "right," the government MUST have the resources to provide it. So consider that when discussing the fictitious "right to adequate healthcare." If it were a "right". (which it is NOT), then Government would have to employ the practitioners to provide it (as well as the facilities).

The State Bar Association, or State Bar, is usually an agency of State government.

No it’s not. It’s more like a lawyers union than a state agency. Lawyers are self-regulating. When a lawyer is convicted of a crime, he/she then faces disbarment by the bar association. This is separate and apart from punishment meted out by the governing jurisdiction.

So you're trying to claim that a private, non-government entity controls whether a person is legally permitted to practice law?

 

[joaquinmiller]

1. You don't get a "license" to practice law from the Government. You get it from the State Bar Association. You don't NEED an attorney for anything. You can sue someone without an attorney, you can defend yourself, you can file complaints and petitions. In most cases, the "how to" aspect can be covered by research that any literate person with enough time can accomplish.

2. There are way too many attorneys already, and our law schools are pumping them out as though there were a critical shortage. But the glut doesn't seem to be lowering attorneys' fees.

3. The "right" to have an attorney only applies to criminal defense situations, and it is instructional that where it is actually a "right," the government MUST have the resources to provide it. So consider that when discussing the fictitious "right to adequate healthcare." If it were a "right". (which it is NOT), then Government would have to employ the practitioners to provide it (as well as the facilities).

The State Bar Association, or State Bar, is usually an agency of State government.

No it’s not. It’s more like a lawyers union than a state agency. Lawyers are self-regulating. When a lawyer is convicted of a crime, he/she then faces disbarment by the bar association. This is separate and apart from punishment meted out by the governing jurisdiction.

https://www.ncbar.gov/about-us/who-we-are/

The North Carolina State Bar was created in 1933 by the North Carolina General Assembly as the government agency responsible for the regulation of the legal profession in North Carolina. The State Bar currently regulates over 28,000 licensed lawyers. Protection of the public and protection of our system of justice are the objectives of regulation.

NYSBA | NYSBA | Attorney Search & Verification / Certificate of Good Standing

A: No. The NYSBA is not the official New York Bar and is not responsible for attorney licenses or registration. Please contact the NYS Office of Court Administration (OCA), the official licensing/registration unit: 212.428.2800, www.nycourts.gov

Virginia State Bar - An Agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia

Virginia State Bar
An Agency of the Virginia Supreme Court
Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia for Organization and Government of the Virginia State Bar

Those are the only three states I checked, but there are 47 more that regulate professionals.

 

[Dragonlady]

When have ‘the media’ collectively claimed that journalists alone are entitled to constitutional protections.

Collectively? I guess they've never done it "collectively." I don't think there is any kind of entity that speaks for all of the American media. Don't think they're in the habit of having a yearly Christmas party and singing kumbaya either.

But I've seen a handful of cable news journalists and pundits make the claim that journalism is the only profession protected by the constitution. Often, but not always, is said in conjunction with a claim that the media is a "fourth branch of government."

The Founders considered an unfettered free press to be necessary for the protection of the country against tyranny. When dictators and despots take over a country, the first thing they do is to take control of the media.

Putin has murdered over 200 reporters who published criticism of his regime. Russians have no idea of his crimes because there is no one left to tell them what he’s doing.

It’s no accident that Donald Trump has been attacking the media relentlessly since his election. The job of the media is to inform the people what their elected officials are doing. It is not their job to be cheerleaders for the government.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1. You don't get a "license" to practice law from the Government. You get it from the State Bar Association. You don't NEED an attorney for anything. You can sue someone without an attorney, you can defend yourself, you can file complaints and petitions. In most cases, the "how to" aspect can be covered by research that any literate person with enough time can accomplish.

2. There are way too many attorneys already, and our law schools are pumping them out as though there were a critical shortage. But the glut doesn't seem to be lowering attorneys' fees.

3. The "right" to have an attorney only applies to criminal defense situations, and it is instructional that where it is actually a "right," the government MUST have the resources to provide it. So consider that when discussing the fictitious "right to adequate healthcare." If it were a "right". (which it is NOT), then Government would have to employ the practitioners to provide it (as well as the facilities).

^ this

/thread

 

[bripat9643]

You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.

The constitution protects the right to be represented by counsel. This means that, contrary to claims by the media, journalists are not the only profession protected by the constitution. Being an attorney is also protected by the constitution. After all, you can't have an attorney if there are no attorneys.

But lawyers are expensive. Like most other things, that's mostly caused by supply and demand. If there were more lawyers, competition would help to drive the prices down, which would be better for consumers and better protect your constitutional right to counsel.

The main problem here is that being a lawyer is regulated. You have to have a license, which can only be obtained based on very high standards. Much like the medical industry, the licensing and training requirements are first and foremost a mechanism to restrict the number of people entering practice, leaving behind a deficit of supply, therefore ensuring the trade remains a highly paid one.

It's basically a statutorily sanctioned cartel that directly infringes upon constitutional protections. How do conservatives tolerate this? Not only is this a case of too much government, it flies in the face of the basic precepts of conservative thinking about gun rights. If it's constitutional for states to require a license to practice law, then that implies that states can require a license to own a gun.

For once I agree with you. The Bar Association is nothing more than a Union.