For over thirty years I read The Economist, Forbes and the Wall Street Journal every day/week. Of all the data, information, and education that flowed from their pages, one article has always stayed with me. I don’t recall the actual title, but the subject matter was that of a legal education in the United States, which it described as a “dialectic one”. Dialectic may be characterized as the “multiple use and philosophical meanings of words, grammatical distortions and debate”. When compared to the study and use of the language of the law in other societies, for instance in Asia or Europe the linguistics are limited to a singular and direct meaning and/or interpretation. Consequently, in those societies etymological deceit is minimized, as is the purposeful disingenuous and specious confusion caused by the imprecise use of language and linguistics. On the other hand, the contradictory dialectics in U.S. legal verbiage may be very frustrating indeed to an American lawyer.

Now, all who may read this already know that the American trial lawyer can be described as many things, but many knowledgeable Americans think of them as duplicitous, disingenuous, unethical, immoral, corrupt, and crude in their personal/professional traits.

Let’s look to where and how they work in the courthouses of this country where they ply their intellectual and academic talents. They use that dialectic education to distort, deceive, confuse, debate and conflate facts, figures, purposes and yes, “the law.” Fair arbiters of reason they’re not. Articulators of logic, purpose, and good deeds they are not. I could go on and on about the things lawyers do which earn them the enmity they create in the hearts and minds of many Americans; but that’s not the point of this exercise. But whether or not a “constitutional republic” can survive in an environment fostering “A BUSINESS OF LAW” is!!!

The key issue to be understood is the constitutional and legal definition of what lawyers in the United States are, that is, “Officers of the Court.” Such a designation is patently an egregious "CONFLICT OF INTEREST" by any measurement of common sense, fairness, proportionality, ethics, morality or definition of law when lawyers are holding elective office.

The practice of law, once a proud and honorable profession; but as a result of the practitioners’ own machinations the legal profession has evolved into an uncontrollable, moneyed, commercial business. It is no longer an “honorable profession”; rather it is driven purely by the pursuit of power and money. Unfortunately, the legal profession more often serves as the conduit for money, rather than for the dispensation of justice. Marrying dispensation of justice with societal financial conduits creates the wherewithal to manage and control all aspects of a society, especially American society. Actually, the money is, more or less, nothing but a scorecard. The principle objective is power and control of the society’s activities.

Another negative effect of merging money and law to control the society’s activities is that it has stealthily imposed “political correctness,” which is self-censorship disguised under the cloak of comity. This perversion of the open exchange of ideas and opinions in this country is only achievable by the insidious melding and camouflaging of the conflict of interest in their relationship to politics.

So, where to begin? By my estimation and others, there are approximately 300-500 major law firms in the United States that control and manipulate the intercourse between Law & Politics. How is it accomplished? Simply put, it all begins at the lowest level of the political “table of organization.” Municipalities, boroughs, townships, school boards, etc., universally have “Solicitors”, all of whom are vetted with a fine tooth comb as to the usual qualifications, i.e. character, integrity, family, education, political posture, and generally are current or former members of those handful of “major law” firms; who in turn finance them and place them or promote their election to the above political positions. It is not hidden from the general public. It is all achieved right out there in the glaring “light of day.” This subterfuge isn’t something most citizens were educated to think about; is it? And, of course, the position of solicitor is merely the first rung of the ladder.

So how is it possible to expect any degree of honesty, equality, fairness, or morality in any instrumentality of government where this “cancer” of controlling and exploiting their professional “conflict of interest” (self-serving privilege) prevails? The degradation of the legal profession becomes perfectly clear when my above description of officers of the court, based on my long personal experience in business and law, is compared with the classic descriptions of practitioners of jurist prudence below:

Officer of the Court: noun advocate, appointed official of the court system, attorney, attorney-at-law, barrister, counsel, counselor, counselor-at-law, designated official of the court system, judicial designate, judicial officer, judicial official, legal advisor, legal advocate, legal consultant, legal practitioner, member of the legal profession, Official of the Court.

It is a fact that of the original 56 signatories of the Declaration of Independence, 34 were lawyers and or judges (61%). Since the beginning of the Republic, the actions and architecture of the government have been largely dictated by the same lawyers as defined above. While it is likely they had similar personalities and idiosyncrasies then as now; moreover, it is recorded that then, they were ethical men of character and integrity. Thus the country was fortunately conceived and built by men of honor.

Today a very strong case can be made that politics is a haven for unsavory characters trained in the law. Yet while America was growing from an agrarian nation into an industrial power, these Founders, “men of conscience” who practiced Law & Politics; developed a marvelous form of governance. That is, a constitution that addressed and incorporated safeguards against the foibles of “human nature” into its functions, infrastructure, architecture and law.

The Founders, as we know designed a three legged stool; made up of executive, judicial, and legislative branches. There are not, nor should there ever be, limitation/exclusion on the qualifications to serve in those branches, except for the Judicial Branch, which exhibits an academic and intellectual need for being educated in the law; such as it is. Beyond the Judicial, a mind trained in the law is at war with itself politically, morally, and ethically in a conflagration of “conflict of interest” and “greed" in perpetuity, rendering itself unfit to serve in the Legislative and Executive branches of this, or any other republican form of government!