sratiug
10-29-2008, 06:15 PM
Mississippi was the first state with a voluntary BAR Association. That didn't work well. Other states came up with the mandatory BAR systems and we then adopted that fascist model.
Since our legal system as guided by the BAR associations is perpetuating and allowing the destruction of America shouldn't we destroy the state supported bar association monopolies? Shouldn't free competition in the courts be as valuable to the liberty movement as free trade in commodities?
I believe this ruling according to the Titles of Nobility clause is correct and that these clauses make state licensing of attourneys and doctors and whatnot illegal and unAmerican.
http://www.civil-liberties.com/13/page3.html
In some cases, their constitutional nonsense is based on misuse of conventional legal premises in an attempt to deceive the layman as well as the inattentive professional. For example, an opinion frequently cited by TONA proponents is that of Judge Saffold in Hurst v. Moses. In that case, state law authorized the Mobile Charitable Association to operate various gambling games on behalf of the common school fund of Mobile County. Saffold wrote that by granting the Association this privilege, denied to all others in the state, the legislature had violated Article I, Section 32 of the State constitution:
"To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached, than to the otherwise empty title or order... [The purpose of the prohibition on titles of nobility is the state constitution] is to preserve the equality of citizens in respect to their public and private rights."
TONA proponents fail to mention quite a few relevant pieces of information about Saffold's opinion, however, First, after remand, the state supreme court affirmed that the law was invalid on other grounds. Second, the opinion refers to the definition of "title of nobility" in the state constitution; similar phrases in state constitutions and the Federal Constitution do not necessarily receive like interpretations. Third, the opinions in Horst v were delivered seriatim: Saffold's opinion, which was not even the lead opinion, was of limited precedential value even in Alabama. Fourth, the opinion has never been cited on point (nor at all more than sixty years); it almost certainly would have been forgotten if it had not been cited in a modern law review article on titles of nobility. Fifth, the subject matter of the case was whether a group of individuals could be authorized by the state to conduct what was in effect a lottery even while a criminal statute prohibiting lotteries remained in place for all other individuals. If TONA were to employ the same principle, any professional granted a privilege to practice by a state (e.g. lawyers, doctors, barbers, cosmetologists) denied to the public at large would hold a title of nobility, be stripped of their citizenship, and be ineligible to hold office.
Since our legal system as guided by the BAR associations is perpetuating and allowing the destruction of America shouldn't we destroy the state supported bar association monopolies? Shouldn't free competition in the courts be as valuable to the liberty movement as free trade in commodities?
I believe this ruling according to the Titles of Nobility clause is correct and that these clauses make state licensing of attourneys and doctors and whatnot illegal and unAmerican.
http://www.civil-liberties.com/13/page3.html
In some cases, their constitutional nonsense is based on misuse of conventional legal premises in an attempt to deceive the layman as well as the inattentive professional. For example, an opinion frequently cited by TONA proponents is that of Judge Saffold in Hurst v. Moses. In that case, state law authorized the Mobile Charitable Association to operate various gambling games on behalf of the common school fund of Mobile County. Saffold wrote that by granting the Association this privilege, denied to all others in the state, the legislature had violated Article I, Section 32 of the State constitution:
"To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached, than to the otherwise empty title or order... [The purpose of the prohibition on titles of nobility is the state constitution] is to preserve the equality of citizens in respect to their public and private rights."
TONA proponents fail to mention quite a few relevant pieces of information about Saffold's opinion, however, First, after remand, the state supreme court affirmed that the law was invalid on other grounds. Second, the opinion refers to the definition of "title of nobility" in the state constitution; similar phrases in state constitutions and the Federal Constitution do not necessarily receive like interpretations. Third, the opinions in Horst v were delivered seriatim: Saffold's opinion, which was not even the lead opinion, was of limited precedential value even in Alabama. Fourth, the opinion has never been cited on point (nor at all more than sixty years); it almost certainly would have been forgotten if it had not been cited in a modern law review article on titles of nobility. Fifth, the subject matter of the case was whether a group of individuals could be authorized by the state to conduct what was in effect a lottery even while a criminal statute prohibiting lotteries remained in place for all other individuals. If TONA were to employ the same principle, any professional granted a privilege to practice by a state (e.g. lawyers, doctors, barbers, cosmetologists) denied to the public at large would hold a title of nobility, be stripped of their citizenship, and be ineligible to hold office.