ALL ATTORNEYS WORKING IN THE CONGRESS AND ADMINISTRATION SHOULD BE DISBARED
ATTORNEYS WORKING IN THE CONGRESS
Douglas A. Wallace JD
solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United
States” is a commitment under oath
taken by all attorneys in the United states both in their local Bar
Associations, the State Courts and the Federal Courts in order to be
admitted to the practice of law in those courts.
attorneys who have been elected to the Congress, either the House or
the Senate have taken the following oath in addition to their
underlying oath in their respective State Bar/Courts and the Federal
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
of the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear
true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well
and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which I am about to enter:
So help me God."
The questions must be asked, “ Why
are these oaths taken?” Are they just “Window Dressing” to give
impressive color to bar membership or are they for real? Is
the oath a prerequisite to Bar membership and to holding office of
public trust? If so, if after taking the oath, the individual
attorney finds him/herself in situations where he or she fails to
execute the oath does that failure not jeopardize bar membership?
been given special rights within the legal system. They are
designated as officers of the courts. As among the laity of our
society, attorneys are deemed exceptional because of learning and
training when it comes to the understanding and knowledge of the law.
This why laymen/women are not allowed to represent clients in a legal
matter either as to counseling or practicing or court
representation. A lay person may go to court to represent him/herself
as party plaintiff or defendant but may not represent others. This is
of course law that has been established for the benefit of the legal
profession with the view of protecting the public.
In the United
States it is estimated that we have about one million licensed
attorneys all of whom have taken the oath of protecting and defending
the Constitution. With 1,000,000 attorneys under oath to protect the
Constitution, how is it possible that it could ever be in jeopardy?
Yet, today, as
millions of Americans realize, the Constitution is in deed in
jeopardy and being violated on a daily basis. If we ask for the
reason of this sad state of affairs, the only obvious conclusion we
come to is that there is no money in
it! Wow! “I
pledge to protect and defend the Constitution”
under breath, “
only if there is money in it!”
So what value has the Constitution if it can only be protected if
there is money it?
Problem is that
the average attorney taking the oath will never in his/her lifetime
be in a position to “protect and defend” due simply to the fact
that by and large the mandatory inescapable obligation falls upon the
shoulders of those who are elected or appointed to legislative,
judicial and executive powers. The average attorney has no power
beyond recommending or suggesting to those in appropriate positions
that attention be given to this or that issue as to it's
constitutionality. I would argue that any attorney having taken the
oath has a minimum duty to so recommend to any appropriate agency
that constitutional issues are at hand and need attention. Failure
to do that of course would not rise to the level of malfeasance
burdening those who have the duty and are in a position to something
about it yet willfully and wantonly look the other way or may indeed
be a party to acts dismantling the Constitution.
group are those in the Congress both Senate and house who think that
they have been given some political immunity by way of election to
look upon the sworn obligation to protect and defend as no more than
a political option to be , “On the table” or, “off the table”.
are individuals within the Department of Justice (DOJ) who fail to
certify the Constitutionality of measures passed by the Congress or
of proposed legislation by staff attorneys of the White House. Even
more deeply incriminated are those attorneys who draft executive
orders for the president which clearly violate the Constitution.
On the fringe
are attorneys who draft opinions for members of the judiciary which
also clearly obstruct and destroy constitutional protections.
attorneys in the various districts who enforce any laws passed by the
Congress or executive orders of the president which are
unconstitutional and therefore illegal are violating their oath. For
they as an attorney member of a bar association, with the knowledge
and training required to become an oath swearing member of the bar,
need not wait for judicial determination of the unconstitutionality
of any act before the duty to protect and defend arises within
his/her obligation. If it comes down to enforce or job loss, the
sworn obligation must take precedent.
Bar members of
the Congress whether elected or appointed have no excuse to escape
the oath and likewise those in the DOJ from Alberto Gonzales on down
are under obligation to protect and defend. It is in fact the duty of
Mr. Gonzales to advise the president of the unconstitutionality of
any action previously undertaken and currently under consideration.
If the president refuses to consider such cautioning, it is Mr
Gonzales duty to remove himself from the office of Attorney General
as have others when a President such as Richard Nixon considers
himself above the law. It is also the duty of attorneys within the
white house to refuse, at risk of their jobs, to write proposed
legislation or executive orders which violate the Constitution. And
if they don't understand the difference they need to be ordered to
take and pass a bar course on the Constitution to maintain bar
It is my
opinion, that the oath to protect and defend the Constitution taken
by anyone as a member of a bar association is a solemn and indeed
which cannot be avoided without the penalty of disbarment. No
attorney has the option of remaining silent on the issue of the
We the People of
the United States need to rise up en mass and demand that
disciplinary committees of bar associations around the country
summon their designated bar members to a hearing on the issue of
continued bar membership for failure to discharge their sworn oath.
Wallace as an attorney, challenged the leaders of the LDS or Mormon
Church, which he was a member of, to change their policy of racism
against Black male members. In 1976, after attempting in vain for
several years to meet and reason with them he gave them notice of his
discontinued subordination and ordained a Black man to the priesthood
resulting in his excommunication. Nevertheless the leaders some two
years later reversed themselves without apology. Mr. Wallace has a
and can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.