Quote:
Posted by
Zanshin
***
When an attorney is admitted to the BAR an oath is sworn; first to the BAR, second to the court of jurisdiction and third to the client -
Oh and any attempt to indict the monarch must be lett. (look that up in Black's law)
That's what the Titles of Nobility amendment was all about - no esquires in government.
***
Please forgive me, but that is nonsense. I'm not singling you out and I do not seek to pick on or embarrass you. Nor am I protecting lawyers. Some are incompetent or complete crooks, but they are the exception, not the rule.
When I was admitted to the practice of law some 40 years ago in the USA (New Mexico) I, like every other lawyer, took an oath to one thing: The Constitution of the United States of America. To uphold and support it; as well as other laws of the Land. (It was virtually the same oath I took when I was inducted into the US Army in 1970.) My goal was then, is now and always has been first and foremost to help people, and along the way to make a reasonable living in the process. I like to think I have succeeded.
Lawyers, or attorneys if one prefers, in the USA do not take an oath to the "BAR" and they do not take an oath to the courts. Rather, lawyers are "officers' of the court" (meaning they have duties to the court as well as to their clients and the community), are regulated by the Supreme Court of the state(s) to which a lawyer is admitted, are subject to the rules promulgated by the states' Supreme Courts, and are bound by the rules of ethics and professional responsibility. If you want to gain an understanding of the myriad professional and ethical rules that govern lawyers and to which they are often held to account if they cross the line, start by getting a copy of the Code of Professional Responsibility governing the practice of law in any state of the USA and read that. These can be readily obtained on the internet. The American Bar Associations also has a set of ethical and professional guidelines that are considered aspirational, if not binding. (By the way, Bar means to be in court, and is technically the railing between the audience an the participants in the proceedings.)
I just looked at my copy of Black's Law Dictionary, Deluxe Seventh Edition (1999). The word "lett" does not appear therein. The word "let" does. "Let" has several meanings, most of which do not apply to what you may be driving at. For instance, one definition of "let" is to rent property. "He let the house to the Smith family."
Another is to allow or permit. "She let the children play in the pool."
This may be the definition of the word "let" (not "lett") as you intend to use it in your post. That is, one must be allowed or have permission, as you say, "to attempt to indict the monarch...", whatever that means.
Lawyers do not have titles of nobility simply by virtue of being sworn in as a lawyer. Not in the USA at least. I cannot speak to other countries, such as England and the distinction drawn there between Solicitors and Barristers and what is a much more archaic judicial system with respect to the ceremony and other trappings that adhere to and are followed in judicial proceedings in England. But I can speak to the fact that in the USA lawyers are not conferred any title of nobility by any governing authority.
You may be referring to "Esquire." (Look it up.) An esquire is a member of the English gentry ranking below a Knight. That term is not limited to Barristers, solicitors (or lawyers)--it applies or at one time did apply to many walks of life in England at least. Use of esquire is a convention that arose between lawyers long before any of us were alive. I eschew use of esquire and I do not use it at all when referring to myself or to any other lawyer. That word is in my view pretentious and elitist. But, being an "esquire" in no way prevents a lawyer, or any other professional person using "esquire," from being in government.
Apparently, it is that word that led to the notion that lawyers hold a title of nobility and thus Article 1, Section 9, clause 8 of the US Constitution is implicated. But, that clause is not implicated and has no application at all to preclude a lawyer, or any other esquire, from holding any elected or appointed office or position of trust in the USA. Article 1, Section 9, clause 8, reads:
"
Titles of Nobility. 8. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
So, in short, in the USA, the National government (nor a state) can constitutionally confer a title of Nobility on anyone, and any person who holds a title of nobility may not accept anything of value from any foreign sovereign or country--unless Congress consents to it. The purpose of this clause is to attempt to establish and maintain loyalty of each US citizen and person to the national government and the united states, or states united. Whether that goal was ever achieved and maintained is highly doubtful. (What should we think of US citizens who have been Knighted in England? People such Alan Greenspan, for instance. Or people with dual citizenship? There are many such people.)
Things are whacky and bizarre enough in this world we live in that are demonstrably provable and need urgently to be fixed, without muddying the waters further with unsubstantiated and pointless ideas that do not advance the ball and achieve any useful purpose.
My apologizes if I have ruffled any feathers.