Truemors
Edited 08/02/2007
ALL ATTORNEYS WORKING IN THE CONGRESS
AND THE Bush ADMNISTRATION
SHOULD BE DISBARED
(with few exceptions)
By Douglas A. Wallace J.D.
“I 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.
All attorneys who have been elected to
the United States Congress, either the United States House
of Representatives or the United States Senate have taken
the following oath in addition to their underlying oath in their
respective State Bar/Courts and the Federal District Courts.
"I
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution
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 obligation freely,
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 [himself or herself] in situations where he or she
fails to execute the oath does that failure failure
jeopardize bar membership?
Attorneys
have been given special rights within the legal system. They are
designated as officers of the courts. 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 is why laymen and -women are not allowed to
represent clients in a legal matter either as to counseling or
practicing law or court representation. A lay person may go to
court to represent [himself or 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 about a million 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 indeed 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”
but
under breath, “ only if
there is money in it!” So what
value is there in the Constitution if it can be protected
protected only if there is money it?
The problem is that the
average attorney taking the oath will never in his or 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 do
something about it yet willfully and wantonly look the other way or
may indeed be a party to acts dismantling the Constitution.
This
latter group are those in the Congress both The Senate and The
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."
Just
as obvious 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 for the
White House. Even more deeply incriminated are those attorneys who
draft executive orders for the president which clearly violate the
Constitution.
Also,
on the fringe are attorneys who draft opinions for members of the
judiciary which also clearly obstruct and destroy constitutional
protections.
Additionally
US Attorneys in the various districts who enforce any laws
passed by the Congress or Executive Orders of The
President which are unconstitutional and therefore, are illegal
are violating their oaths. For each of them as an attorney member of
a bar association, with the knowledge and training required to become
an oath swearing member of their respective bars, need not
wait for judicial determination of the unconstitutionality of any act
before the duty to protect and defend arises within his or
her obligation. If it comes down to enforcement 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 the
oath they have sworn. It is in fact the duty of Mr. Alberto Gonzales
to advise the The President of the unconstitutionality of any action
previously undertaken and currently under consideration. If The
President refuses to heed such cautioning advice, it is Mr
Gonzales duty to remove himself from the office of Attorney General
as have others when a President such as Richard Nixon did when
he considered himself above the law. It is also the duty of
attorneys within the The White House to refuse, at risk of
losing 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 by their respective bars,
since Congress has failed to act constitutionally o take and
pass a bar course on the Constitution to maintain bar membership.
It
is my opinion hat the oath to protect and defend the Constitution
taken by anyone as a member of a bar association is a solemn and
indeed sacred obligation
which cannot be avoided without the penalty of disbarment. No
attorney has the option of remaining silent on the issue of the
Constitution.
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.
As an afterthought, I
would extend the same reasoning to State Governors offices, State
Legislatures, Attorney Generals, and State Agencies that employ staff
attorneys. I would also clarify that unless the attorney resigns his
or her bar membership, the sworn oath requires an attorney to leave
the scene of non-constitutional compliance after the failure of
heeding his or her advice by those others involved and do so with a
noise. The attorney may not under any circumstances be a party to
non compliance! Only in this way may we continue and maintain
constitutional democracy. If attorneys are not lions at the gate of
democracy we are doomed!
Mr.
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
website
www.recallthecongress.com
and can be contacted at
d.a.wallace@sbcglobal.net.
Comments (0)