Many have criticized my legal interpretations of statute of law(and also have argued that if say Trump's own lawyers hadn't made the argument, that means that my own argument by default must lack validity) because I am not a lawyer. And it is true, I do not have any credentials in the legal profession(Also, to be sure nothing stops you from representing yourself in your own case, it's just that you can't represent others) But why is that the case? Honestly, it's because at 32 years old I'm at a crossroads. I don't want to invest the time in trying to get a degree and then later, to be gainfully employed. Both the medical and law communities have education as a barrier, not an asset to its employment(which is why you see the top of those fields reguritate its top people). I do not believe it is because of an inability on my part to understand the subject matters at hand. Nor do I concur with the idea that if a lawyer or a court were to take a different argument than my own, that means my argument has no sway. The problem with saying that is because they hadn't heard the argument. Who knows if they had, maybe my understanding would have met agreement in the court room. Essentially, I take offense to the idea that just because I am not legally a lawyer, that means my philosophical and reasoning abilities can be put into question. I don't think it can be. The other reason I am not a lawyer, is I hate the pretzel community within the legal field. The idea that you can come up with new definition of words and that these definitions only have literal meaning inside of the courtroom flies in the face of any definitional consistency. As philosophers, we are bound to consistency we swear ourselves to it. Not that we can't change our opinion, but we must not change our reasoning process. Facts can be wrong, but the ability to deduce facts cannot be. If you can change how you view things, on a whim then no one can know where you stand. You can change positions, but you shouldn't change principle. The American judicial system in 2024 demands that its lawyers change their principle and moral, based on the conditions in the court room. Personally, I don't know if I can do that.
At age 17 I had to appear in court for 'reckless driving'. Knowing I might lose my driver's license I called a lawyer to represent me. He just suggested over the phone that I plead guilty and ask for mercy. In court the cop told his story and I told my story and presented many facts. The judge let me off.
You seem to be making a few different arguments all in one post. it would be better to separate them. I'm guessing you have undertaken some legal study and don't want to take it further because you see the profession as somehow unworthy. And yet you have any interest in legal studies and legal argument and ponderance. But you also have an interest in philosophy, which is a much less rigid and free thinking form of mental art? I can only think to say on the basis of this scant information that if you really have a passion for the law,I would respect you more if you finished your studies became a lawyer and then sought to undertake the kind of reforms that you deem necessary within the current framework. I think you would then find that some of your perceptions would be assumptions. Assuming how something works from the outside is not the same as being inside. Of course you may have other interests. But whatever profession you seek to explore you will always need to make compromises first, and play by their rules. That would even apply to philosophy. Rigidity and tradition within professional disciplines, even when obviously outdated provides stability, which is also important.
Its kinda foundational to our justice system that there be lawyers who are willing and able to take up a cause they don't believe in and be 'devil's advocate.' As an extreme example, even pedophiles need to have representation, especially considering that its not outside the realm of possibility that any of us could be falsely accused of and prosecuted for pedophilia. I would very glad there are people out there who will 'fight the good fight' ...for pedophiles... in that circumstance. And that being said, I could not do that, if I believed they were likely guilty. Which I guess is one reason why I'm not a lawyer. Lawyers tend to (seem to) suck as humans ...until you yourself sit perceived and persecuted as a criminal, then they become essential to both societal justice and individual liberty. But I don't think not being a lawyer invalidates your argument. There are arguments that lawyers simply cant make in court for procedural purposes, or that might open up a can of worms their client wants to avoid, or make sense but arent supported by precedent, and on and on. This isn't a court of law, and you don't need a liscence to speak your mind. ...but also others don't have to pay you any mind if they dont want to, even if you make perfect sense. Willful ignorance isnt a crime.
Not really. Lawyers need to be able to argue both sides of a case for the practical reason that sometimes you represent a white hat and sometimes you represent a black one. Anyway, some states have alternate paths to becoming a lawyer than law school. I think Kim Kardashian is following one of them by studying under a lawyer or lawyers. You really shouldn't give any credence to the criticism simply because it is the one profession where it really doesn't always matter what the law is. Lawyers, judges, and juries are human and bring their bias with them. The constitution is just a piece of paper It is up to courts to decide when and how it applies. Same goes for federal, state, and local laws. Courts may not be even consistent on the same day in different cases about essentially the same crime.
Them saying that your argument isn't valid for the reasons you stated is usually due to some sort of bias. And its a fallacy. An Appeal to Authority fallacy. Just because someone may be more knowledgeable on a subject, doesn't always mean that they are always correct or don't make mistakes. Hence why its considered a fallacy. People that do it usually can't argue against the points the person that they are arguing with make. But they can't let the argument stand uncontested so resort to the fallacy.
It's my fault for not clarifying, so allow me to do so here. It's not so much that I had undertaken legal study, but rather I feel as though at my advanced age(32 next month), I feel too far behind the 8-ball to actually get started. And as such, it feels like I'll be wasting years studying(if I chose to go down that road) rather than being gainfully employed. At the same time, if I don't get started then I never will. So that's the kind of crossroads I, and a lot of people in their 20's/30's are. Long and short term interests are clashing against each other. At the same token, I've always considered myself a philosopher which as you conclude can be seen as a more 'free thinking' form of mental art, but a deeper look at it and I would say: Not as it would appear. For anyone to take an individual's reasoning or conclusion seriously, the base from which they argue has to be a constant. We have to use words most people agree to, and that most people understand. While law should ideally have that same standard, it does not. It swerves and pivots, it changes direction. I like that in politics, the situation always changes and requires adaptability. But in the realm of the law, which should have the same universal standards it sticks out like an ugly eyesore(at least to me). I do not think 'individual cases'(that deal with similar subject matter) should be treated differently. If = X, then it should be X. But in court, with a little twisting, it can also = Y. That pisses me off from a free thinking prospective. Without consistency, how can any lawyer be expected to put up a legal defense? But even all of this, is not the crux of the reason I made this post. I made this post, because I'm sick and tired of "Well, you're not a lawyer" or "Oh, they didn't make that argument so." I wish I were a part of, just as an example Trump's legal counsel. I could convince him of alternative strategies that can actually work and win. His insistence on holding onto executive privileges as a defense is a losing strategy, when the prosecution has put itself in a position where there's other arguments that at minimum, can reduce the charges against him(as just an example, the count on defrauding can be defeated simply because the vote has 1) Been counted, 2) Biden is President and 3) The votes tallying for office are de-facto not the same as the votes tallied at the election tables. So it can't be said that the voters had been cheated. That only would've happened if Biden didn't become President. That one as an example is extremely low hanging fruit and was likely only put there to increase the indictment count. I bet if you put even a little legal defense pressure on it, prosecutor Smith would retract it. But Trump has not taken legal strategies against the counts against him. And who knows if such arguments would work, but they're better than the alternative. My point being, not so much that "I'm right"(there's no way to prove that), but I'm not "wrong" either. It's completely fair to me to have my prospective and post it out, is all I'm trying to say.
IF you're right, legally, philosophically or in any way, especially legally, it should be provable; or you're probably not right. It's more than fair, IMHO, that people get to post whatever comes to mind and, IF it doesn't break the rules they can post it and not have it deleted. There are certain professions that require prospective practitioners to be educated. You wouldn't want someone without a Civil Engineering degree designing high rise buildings, or without a medical degree practicing medicine. I certainly don't, peoples lives depend on their competence. Saying you could represent trump in court makes perfect sense when he's being represented by the likes of Alina Habba; you certainly couldn't do a worse job. I mean when a judge tells a lawyer to learn how to enter evidence into a trial, in his court room. That's a clue that just maybe trump wasn't being represented well. But claiming that you could represent him because of your understanding of internet facts that aren't ... facts; is pretty bold. But I digress. Like engineering and medicine you can't practice law without a degree because it takes a lot of study to just get the process of representing someone down. As Alina Habba proved, it's not easy. That's not even addressing all the different types of law and how they apply. My guess is you don't even have an Associates degree of any kind. If you do, your English Professor should be fired, shooting would be to good for them. (you) "I do not have any credentials in the legal profession(Also, to be sure nothing stops you from representing yourself in your own case, it's just that you can't represent others) (not a new paragraph) But why is that the case? Honestly, it's because at 32 years old I'm at a crossroads." "Your Right to Represent Yourself in a Criminal Case The case that established that defendants have a right to represent themselves was Faretta v. California, U.S. Sup. Ct. 1975. The Faretta case said that a judge must allow self-representation if a defendant is competent to understand and participate in the court proceedings. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/right-represent-yourself-criminal-case.html" There is legal precedent for representing yourself and, not others. And it has nothing to do with your being 32 years old at a cross roads. I know/hope that's not what you were trying to say but that's how it reads. You have your shingle hung out as a philosopher, but even philosopher's need to write better than that. (you) "I don't want to invest the time in trying to get a degree and then later, to be gainfully employed." Education isn't just about becoming gainfully employed, it's about becoming, well, "educated". Which, I hate to say, you're obviously not. I'm not trying to get on you, I'm trying to help you see that you can't just decide you're intelligent and without any study conclude you're educated. That's not how it works. At 32, you may not be a spring chicken but, your life is just getting started, if you want to present yourself as educated; get educated. When I was your age (not that I'm an example for anyone) I used to go to the library and find something I was interested in and read that whole section of the library; honest. At least I checked out every book in that section, if I didn't feel it was serving me I wouldn't finish that book. And I did that section by section in our little small town library until I had pretty much gotten through the whole library. The point is I read .. a LOT. Eventually I went back to college, at 40, and got two degrees and paid for it by working for the college as I went. IF you don't want to educate yourself, or get an education, today, you're one day closer to the day you will ... or the day you will die. What you do with the time in between now and then is up to you. But, please, for every one's sake, in the mean time, at least learn how to write a complete sentence, a little about punctuation, and how to organize your thoughts coherently; especially if you want to be taken at all seriously.
This was a condescending post, but also if you're going to be condescending then you shouldn't choose the one area of my life I'm really confident in: Literacy and the English language. For starters: Yes it is a separate paragraph, that's what the parenthesis is for(like so). And everyone has used parenthesis with this in mind: https://www.sjsu.edu/writingcenter/docs/handouts/Parentheses and Brackets.pdf Suffice to say, anyone knows this so the fact that you don't would make you...I guess, uneducated? I could have easily chosen to use the semicolon ";" or I could have chosen to make a new sentence, but I chose the parenthesis as a way to keep it structured. And no, that's not how it reads. That's how you CHOSE to read it, and what makes it really dumb from a literacy prospective is if you actually take the time to read, it says "I'm at a crossroads". I'm giving a personal reason as to why I feel that way. You thought I was citing some lawful reason as to why "I couldn't represent myself"? And YOU have the gall to call someone else uneducated? You think YOUR that guy? And then to top off your egotistical holier than thou post, you have the audacity to tell me the purpose of higher education is to 'get educated'(And we wonder why academia is having a brain drain, reference to this mindnumbing response here) You are right about one thing though(like a broken clock): Education can continue. So I suggest you learn how to be a little more modest, to maintain some etiquette about yourself and to have a little self respect. That way you won't look like a fool, trying to look like some English Major.
Also, I was too busy tearing down your stupid illiteracy claims to also tear down your verbatim "Well, if provable then true." statement. But I'll put less time and effort into this: It's not about(especially in a court) proving that a claim is true, rather it's about getting others to agree that it is true. Be this accomplished through physical or circumstantial evidence. In the case of posting via a PF forum, I'm simply saying in light of this counter argument(ie: My legal qualifications), it is not possible for me to prove this truth because even if I cite various opinions and testimony or whatever, my lack of legal qualifications would be used to brush off any attempt. Furthermore, I accept the argument as fighting the argument is pointless. My only statement then is a literacy example of the 'absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence'. Just because I lack qualifications, doesn't mean I'm unable to participate. It means that no one should use my views as a matter of their own representation. It's a good thing I never said that they should or could.
A law degree isn’t required in roughly 10% of our states. You do need an undergraduate degree and must pass the bar examination to practice. If you have the former and a passion for law try to get a job in a law firm ( in any capacity) and hit the books. If there’s a will there is a way. First, of course, is finding a state that doesn’t require a J.D.
