Compelled speech is not free speech, compelled loyalty is no loyalty and compelled respect is no respect
"A Mississippi judge ordered an attorney to spend several hours in jail Wednesday after the attorney chose not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in court.
The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal reported that Chancery Judge Talmadge Littlejohn told a court audience to rise and say the pledge. People in the courtroom said Danny Lampley of Oxford stood but did not say the words.”
Source
17 comments:
If this lawyer is unwilling to pledge simple support for the republic formed by the Constitution of the United States, and the values of "liberty and justice for all", then can he be trusted to treat the laws created to define specifics of these principles with honesty and integrity? I think not.
Far too many lawyers are being taught that the profession is about gamesmanship and winning at all costs, rather than being about truth and justice. This lawyer seems to have learned that lesson far too well.
If he was my lawyer, I would fire him on the spot. If he was the opposition, I would expect extreme dishonesty from him.
The Pledge of Allegiance is not a government loyalty oath. Note that nowhere in the pledge does it mention the President, the Congress, SC, or any other governmental agency. It is a pledge to an idea represented by our flag and not to the people elected to various positions.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,"
This is a pledge to a symbol of the country....
"and to the republic for which it stands,"
...pledging for what the government represents...
"one nation, under God, indivisible,"
...recognizing that it stands in unity of the nation, not the division of states...
"with liberty and justice for all."
...and that liberty and justice are to be extended to all its citizens.
For a lawyer to NOT take such a pledge absolutely calls into question his loyalty to our government and its judicial system.
-sig
The judge is the one that needs to be locked up. This is a case where the judge, using a false claim of "contempt," violated the lawyer's First Amendment rights.
The lawyer stood and was respectful during the reciting of the Pledge. That is more than he has to do.
If this is the type of "justice" one receives in guy's courtroom, he should resign or be removed.
The First Amendment provides, in part:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech .... "
Certainly jailing a person for not speaking words commanded by a government representative to be spoken, under threat of jail, is a profound abridgment of freedom of speech.
We may not like his choice, and surely we would have every right to fire him as our lawyer and in any other way not associate with him. But the government has no right to jail him for an unpopular choice.
I have not doubt that if a lawyer refused to take their loyalty oaths, that Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao, Kim il-Sung, Pol Pot and Saddam would all happily jail him, just as this judge has done. This judge makes his bed with those folks.
Some will say this lawyer's refusal to speak the commanded words proves his disloyalty. Perhaps it does, perhaps it proves he only had a sore throat. More likely, it proves the lawyer wanted to test whether he who commanded the words actually believed in the meaning of the words or simply reveled in his own power. But actions speak far louder than words. By his actions, this judge proved either he despises the meaning of the words and all they stand for, or is simply mentally incapable of understanding them.
Were I a member of the Mississippi legislature I would immediately move for the impeachment of this judge who clearly would be happier enforcing the commands of the bloodthirsty tyrants he stands shoulder to shoulder with than enforcing the liberties enshrined by the U.S. Constitution.
"Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny." — Patrick Henry
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." — Thomas Paine
"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." — Adlai Stevenson
Each of us must decide whether we stand with the likes of Adolph, Uncle Joe and Saddam or if we stand with the patriots who founded this great nation based on freedom of conscience. Shame on this judge! Shame on those of you who stand with him on the wrong side of this great divide!
"Far too many lawyers are being taught that the profession is about gamesmanship and winning at all costs, rather than being about truth and justice. This lawyer seems to have learned that lesson far too well."
---But that is the way it's supposed to be. The prosecutor does everything he can to convict and the lawyer does everything he can to get a not guilty verdict or even have the case dismissed.
If you were in trouble would you not want your lawyer to do everything he can to help you?
I don't want to live in a police state where the prosecutors and the cops are always right. That only leads to abuses.
As criminal lawyers often say, "I'd rather see 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail."
"Certainly jailing a person for not speaking words commanded by a government representative to be spoken, under threat of jail, is a profound abridgment of freedom of speech."
---I agree completely. We have to have principles before blind patriotism.
Search u tube for "Red Skeltons pledge of allegiance" its a classic .
ISHGEBOR
"If you were in trouble would you not want your lawyer to do everything he can to help you?"
Everything short of distorting the law. It's the twisting, dishonest manipulation that I object to.
That this lawyer seems to disagree with the concept of "liberty and justice for all" enough that he's unwilling to say the pledge disturbs me, no matter which side of the aisle he's on, though I guess I would be more disturbed if he's a prosecutor.
Likewise, elected officials seem to have no problem with breaking their sworn oath to "uphold and defend" the Constitution of the United States. And that is a huge problem for this country.
I see both situations as similar.
That this lawyer seems to disagree with the concept of "liberty and justice for all" enough that he's unwilling to say the pledge disturbs me, no matter which side of the aisle he's on, though I guess I would be more disturbed if he's a prosecutor.
So you believe that a person that is exercising the concept of "liberty" somehow doesn't believe in "liberty?" Somehow his unwillingness to be bullied and strong-armed by a judge means that he doesn't believe in liberty?
I see both situations as similar.
So let's see.... a guy upholds the First Amendment and you see that as being similar to another person breaking their word, or the law?
Sorry, there is no comparrison.
A lawyer is in a position of authority and privilege to either uphold or undermine the concepts of liberty and justice. They are an officer of the court, and as such, they have an obligation to uphold those concepts.
The Pledge is not an official oath. Yet, it is in line with their obligations. Are you arguing that they have a "First Amendment right" to undermine liberty and justice? If the lawyer is serious about meeting his obligations to uphold liberty and justice, then why would he have a problem with the far less formal and stringent statements in the Pledge?
I say that a person in a position of legal authority and privilege has a duty to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and duly constituted laws, and that obligation is NOT superseded by the First Amendment. Do you disagree with this part?
My argument is that the Pledge of Allegiance is a lightweight version of that duty, and if the lawyer cannot agree to the Pledge, then he necessarily disagrees with the far more critical obligations as an officer of the court. The latter is why I cannot side with the lawyer.
Here's more:
Lawyers Duty as an Officer of the Court Unmasked
I would really like to know why a Judge thought it appropriate to force the recital of the pledge in the first place.
@Tidford Tatt said, "Certainly jailing a person for not speaking words commanded by a government representative to be spoken, under threat of jail, is a profound abridgment of freedom of speech."
Lawyers need to be trusted, otherwise their vital roles cannot be trusted. Maybe the "Pledge of Allegiance" was not the proper "test" of this trust, but lawyers should be required to swear oaths of truth or loyalty just as do witnesses. Otherwise, they should be considered "hostile" and it should impact their ability to practice law.
They are an officer of the court, and as such, they have an obligation to uphold those concepts.
I agree.
Are you arguing that they have a "First Amendment right" to undermine liberty and justice?
No, I am arguing that upholding the First Amendment is well within the oath one takes as a lawyer as well as an exercise of the rights he enjoys as enumerated by the Constitution.
then why would he have a problem with the far less formal and stringent statements in the Pledge?
Are you really asking as to why a person believes in the First Amendment? Are you really asking why a person believes in freedom?
I say that a person in a position of legal authority and privilege has a duty to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and duly constituted laws, and that obligation is NOT superseded by the First Amendment. Do you disagree with this part?
So you believe that a person has a duty to defend the Constitution in one breath and then believe he must attack the freedoms and rights put forth in the same document to show "loyalty" to the Constitution? There is something very convoluted in that thinking. The only thing I think you can be saying is that the Constitution is somehow more important or carries more weight than the Bill of Rights and other Amendments. Nothing in our history or law says that to be true.
if the lawyer cannot agree to the Pledge, then he necessarily disagrees with the far more critical obligations as an officer of the court.
That is a argument that has no basis in logic. The lawyer upheld the Constitution that allows for free speech. He was jailed for that. Normally, a contempt of court citation requires that the person has done something to interrupt or disrupt the court proceedings. That did not happen here. There is no indication that the lawyer did anything other than to stand respectfully while the Pledge was recited. No one in their right mind believes that this was a disruption of the court. You talk about the responsibility of the lawyer, but what about the responsibility of the judge? Apparently you believe that people should be thrown in jail without a trial. Apparently you believe that people should be sentenced without the ability to call witnesses, put on a defense, etc.
Apparently, you support the tyranny of the judge.
Lawyers Duty as an Officer of the Court Unmasked
You might want to note that the cited source is for Australian courts, not US courts.
"Everything short of distorting the law. It's the twisting, dishonest manipulation that I object to."
---That's where it gets tricky, there's a lot in the law that's subject to opinion and interpretation. Lawyers who tamper with the evidence and violate the law get in trouble, but a lawyer that gets a case thrown out after discovering that the cop didn't have a proper warrant or beat up a witness had done his job no matter how vile the defendant.
"That this lawyer seems to disagree with the concept of "liberty and justice for all" enough that he's unwilling to say the pledge disturbs me, no matter which side of the aisle he's on, though I guess I would be more disturbed if he's a prosecutor."
---I'm equally disturbed by lawyers who don't believe that the second amendment confers and individual right to keep and bear arms, however, we don't jail lawyers for not having the right opinions. Requiring lawyers to say the pledge opens a pandora's box of unintended consequences. Besides, what if that pledge changes someday? What if the commies take over and suddenly we have to say "under nature" instead of "under God." Like the old expression goes, be careful what you wish for.
"Likewise, elected officials seem to have no problem with breaking their sworn oath to "uphold and defend" the Constitution of the United States. And that is a huge problem for this country."
---You're right about that, and there's no easy solution other than voting the bastards out and hoping the new bastards aren't as bad.
I pleged my life when I enlisted in the army at age 17 in 1945. I do not feel any need to keep reciting the pledge of alegiance at various public functions; especially so since religion was introduced into it. I stand respectfully, but I do not say the words.
"If he was my lawyer, I would fire him on the spot. If he was the opposition, I would expect extreme dishonesty from him."
It's a lawyer, yet you don't automatically expect extreme dishonesty?
Post a Comment