Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!sri-spam!nike!lll-crg!lll-lcc!dual!ucbvax!BRL.ARPA!mll From: mll@BRL.ARPA Newsgroups: mod.legal Subject: (none) Message-ID: <8607181552.aa11025@SEM.BRL.ARPA> Date: Fri, 18-Jul-86 15:48:42 EDT Article-I.D.: SEM.8607181552.aa11025 Posted: Fri Jul 18 15:48:42 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jul-86 03:58:30 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 54 Approved: info-law@brl.arpa Newsgroups: mod.legal Subject: Re: BITNET mail follows Summary: Expires: References: <8607171214.ae23797@SEM.BRL.ARPA> Sender: Reply-To: mll@brl.arpa (Mary L. Long (PMRD) ) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Keywords: In article <8607171214.ae23797@SEM.BRL.ARPA> ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET writes: > I also object to the feeling that lawyers are responsible > Lawyers work with law as it is, not as they wish it >were. It is the duty of the citizenry to abolish those laws >they find repugnant and enforce those they find agreeable. >It is the job of the legal system to discern the intent of >statutes and practice accordingly. If you want to reform I too, do see that realistically no one group can be the scape- goat of the unsatisfied masses when it comes to the current condition of our legal system, however is it not in the power of the lawyers to interpret the law? If so, is it not advantageous for them to interpret the law according to their own idea of justice. Therefore, doesn't the common citizen have the right to be discouraged by the fact that well-meaning laws are seemingly twisted by lawyers. The average citizen has a right to his cynicism and disillusionment. > > Finally, the entire legal profession, like any other, is >subject to the pressures of those it serves. I am not >saying that lawyers are blameless in the "legal tyranny" >which darkens the profession. I do think, however, that it >is encumbent upon every citizen to be informed about the law >and work within it, or to refrain from participating >entirely. Yes, that means that I would object to my >considered vote in the electorate being cancelled out by >someone who exercises the random method. Don't get me >wrong, I am not directing that statement at you, but there >are people whose knowledge of the workings of their >government, including the law, is so dismal that, literally, >they should be prevented from voting. Your call for awareness, although preaching enlightened ideas, can be construed as a rather elitist policy. Should we adopt a national policy that prohibits anyone who can say not pass a political awareness test from voting. Does the fact that someone votes, albeit a random vote, mean that they are unconcerned? With the appalling lack of political efficacy in this nation, should we complain about the fact that someone actually votes. It is the non-voters that need to be addressed. PS. I too am trying to galvinize a few politiclly pugnacious souls.