Lawyers Were Banned From Legislature for 498 Years

[palani]

I presume this was overturned by some law enacted in Parliament, probably the same law that eliminates attorneys from the practice of law in England in 1870, which then means they have the ability to become members of Parliament.

http://www.clrg.info/2011/07/the-law-banning-lawyers-for-498-years/


HALSBURY’s STATUTES OF ENGLAND

46 Edward III AD 1372
80. Lawyers and Sheriffs excluded from Parliament

WHEREAS men of the law who follow divers businesses in the king’s courts on behalf of private persons, with whom they are, do procure and cause to be brought into parliament many petitions in the name of the commons, which in no wise relate to them, but only the private persons with whom they are engaged; also sheriffs who are common officers for the people, and ought to be abiding in their office, for the doing right to every one, are named, and have heretofore been and returned to parliament knights of the shires, by the same sheriffs; it is accorded and assented in this parliament, that hereafter no man of the law following business in the king’s court, nor any sheriff for the time that he is sheriff, be returned nor accepted knights of the shires; nor that they who are men of the law and sheriffs now returned to parliament have any wages; but the king willeth that knights and sergeants of the most worthy of the county be hereafter returned knights in parliament; and that they be elected in full county.



Question though ... If the U.S. adapted English common law as it existed at the time of the revolution, and if the U.S. never banned attorneys from the practice of law as did England, then t'would it not follow that attorneys (and sheriff's) have never had a place in the American equivalent of Parliament (aka Congress)?

[Publico]

Thanks for the link. It's very useful to me.

Right now I'm working on this issue. My state's constitution disqualifies from sitting in the legislature anyone who is an officer of the "United States, this state or other other power" except for notary publics, postmasters making less than $100 per year, officers in the militia to which no annual salary is attached, and justices of the peace.

Argument: An attorney at law is an office of the court, thus has a sworn duty of fidelity and allegiance to the court and to protect the the court from harm. Therefore, if a member of the legislature is also a member of the court that member is comprised in their duty to the people. Whereas a member who is not an attorney can determine for themselves what the (state) Constitution means an attorney must respect the (state's Supreme) court's decide as what the Constitution means and cannot espouse the impeachment and conviction of a judge of the court since the attorney/legislator can be disbarred for demanding impeachment. I, as a citizen of the state, am deprived on my right to have a legislature the can fully and completely debate the issues of the day.

Second, with members of the National Guard and other military units who are members of the legislature owe a duty to follow the orders of the Commander-in-Chief. Thus I as a citizen of this must cannot be assured that those members who are also under the command of a power foreign to this state are not acting under orders of the Commander-in-Chief. Moreover, The Commander-in-Chief can influence the legislature's makeup by calling to service military members thus depriving me of my right to have a legislature composed of 150 members.

[palani]

My state's constitution disqualifies from sitting in the legislature anyone who is an officer of the "United States, this state or other other power"

Curious if you would divulge the name of the state with this constitution?

The wording would indicate that "this state" is classed as "other power" ... which would be true since "this state" is the entity name reserved for U.S. citizens and their bankrupt structure.

Washington law ..... "within this state" is defined to be the federal zones within the EXTERIOR boundaries of "the state".

[Publico]

The Great State of Iowa. Article 3, Section 22 (http://search.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/gateway.dll/ic/1/2/11?f=templates$fn=document-frameset.htm$q=[field%20folio-destination-name:%27codeConstIACod_Section_55%27]$x=Advanced#0-0-0-798) (1857 replacing the 1846 Constitution.)

FYI - Previous constitutions of a state can still be cited as controlling law in the proper case. Around 1984 the U.S. District Court in Chicago cited the 1818 Illinois Constitution in a case where (iirc) DePaul University wanted to build a parking lot on property abutting Lake Michigan. The Court cited a 1818 provision that the shores of Lake Michigan in Illinois would be "forever free and open" to the people of Illinois. (Illinois has had 6 or so newer constitutions.) That is why the shore line of Lake Michigan is free of development except for about one mile (which was sold by the federal territorial government of Illinois around 1815).

In the early 1970's old man Mayor Daley was threatening to charge non-residents a fee to use Chicago's beaches - he changed his tune when the suburban mayors threaten to have the State of Illinois take control of Chicago's beaches (good moneymaker for the city with the concessions on the beach.)

[palani]

Previous constitutions of a state can still be cited as controlling law in the proper case.

Schedule

Laws in force. SEC. 2. All laws now in force and not inconsistent with this constitution, shall remain in force until they shall expire or be repealed.