Bar Association Discriminates against Communists

[jacobin1949]

Now it does say violent and unlawful but during the 1950s the CPUSA's constitution forbid using unconstitutional means to take power and that didn't stop McCarthy from throwing them in jail. Even the military allows membership in "totalitarian" organizations as long as no uniform is worn at events. Its 2008 and "liberal" New York prevents Communists, Anarchists, and any revolutionaries from becoming lawyers!

They even use the term "loyalty oath" right out of McCarthy!


LOYALTY / OATHS /CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
18. Have you ever organized or helped to organize or become a member of any organization
or group of persons which, during the period of your membership or association, you knew was
advocating or teaching that the government of the United States or any state or any political
subdivision thereof should be overthrown or overturned by force, violence or any unlawful means?
. If your answer is in the affirmative, state the facts below._________
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
__________________________________________________ ___________________________.
19. Is there any reason why you cannot take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation that you
will support the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of New York? __________. If
there is, please explain.
.
20. Can you conscientiously, and do you, affirm that you are without any mental reservation,
loyal to and ready to support the Constitution of the United States? .
21. (a) Have you read the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility
adopted by the Appellate Division (see, 22 NYCRR Part 1200)? _________________________.
(b) Will you conscientiously endeavor to conform your professional conduct to them?
____________.
***
Since this is a continuing application, I will submit such additional affidavits, papers
or information as may be requested or as may be necessitated by any change in my situation
up to the date of my appearance before the Appellate Division to be sworn in as an attorney

[Comrade Nadezhda]

That's just another example of how the state apparatus is controlled by the bourgeoisie and therefore used to protect their bourgeois interests and control movement against their bourgeois "democracy" by limiting the power of the working-class. Not only is it exploitive but that is exactly what causes the subordination of the proletariat to the bourgeoisie-- the use of the coercive institution of the state for the purpose of that subordination-- so that the bourgeoisie can secure their own private "personal" interests-- which ultimately what has gone on in the United States.

[Eleftherios]

Unfortunately, this is not very surprising. But I do not think that any lawyers would actually tell the government that they were revolutionary leftists anyway. You don't have to tell the truth all the time.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:07 pm
Unfortunately, this is not very surprising. But I do not think that any lawyers would actually tell the government that they were revolutionary leftists anyway. You don't have to tell the truth all the time.
yes indeed-- but that isn't to say that no one can ever find out or that no one knows of it, but of course that depends on a lot of things. if you got arrested, for example.

[MarxSchmarx]

jacobin - don't they teach anything useful in law school?

There are ways you could give them what they want and justify your answers to yourself. For example:


Can you conscientiously, and do you, affirm that you are without any mental reservation, loyal to and ready to support the Constitution of the United States? .

The constitution has provisions for amendments, so pay lip service to the question. Know full well that after it has been rendered useless, a rubber-stamp congressional session will be called to formally abolish this thing. Kind of like how Apartheid formally dissolved.

This was something I just pulled out of my ass on the fly. I'm sure given some thought you are clever enough to figure out similar kinds of hedging-fudging bullshit.

After all, as a lawyer isn't that what you guys are supposed to do?

[jacobin1949]

I realize that technically most radical groups in the USA state clearly they do not advocate violence or unconstitutional means.

BUT that has never prevented discrimination in the past.

Seems to be biased against left wing groups. the military for example also forbids groups that preach racial hatred, while the bar only cares about radical change.

[MarxSchmarx]

technically most radical groups in the USA state clearly they do not advocate violence or unconstitutional means.

that has never prevented discrimination in the past.


Yes, but given that the freaking SUPREME COURT is committed to saying "precedent Schmrecedent" on every other case they say, I don't think it is legally unsound to take that to its logical conclusion.



Seems to be biased against left wing groups. the military for example also forbids groups that preach racial hatred, while the bar only cares about radical change.


Comrade, the Constitution of the U$A makes sense only in light of slavery.

Welcome to the club.

[bcbm]

Wow, an exam for people going in to a profession requiring them to uphold the law requires them to believe in said law? Crazy!

:rolleyes: This is hardly "discrimination" in the sense this board exists for.

[lvleph]

You could sue them to have it removed. Is that just in the NY State bar?

[MarxSchmarx]

Wow, an exam for people going in to a profession requiring them to uphold the law requires them to believe in said law? Crazy!

The problem Jacobin wants to point out is the double standard applied to radical leftists as opposed to racist shitheads.

Hmmm... I wonder why white supremacists like Matthew Hale (http://www.rickross.com/reference/hale/hale29.html) aren't subject to similar loyalty oaths. You think it could it have anything to do with the racist "constitution"?

[which doctor]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 01, 2007 08:00 pm
Wow, an exam for people going in to a profession requiring them to uphold the law requires them to believe in said law? Crazy!

:rolleyes: This is hardly "discrimination" in the sense this board exists for.
I was going to say something similar.

This is the equivalent of the Republican Party requiring an oath that states you must uphold the principles of the republican party.

Why would a revolutionary want to be a lawyer anyways?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:03 pm
Why would a revolutionary want to be a lawyer anyways?
that is not the point--

i wouldn't want to be a lawyer as it is, but the point is, regardless- it is a means of repressing revolutionaries as it is trying to exclude them from the practice for the purpose of securing interests of the bourgeois state.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 02, 2007 01:00 am
Wow, an exam for people going in to a profession requiring them to uphold the law requires them to believe in said law? Crazy!

:rolleyes: This is hardly "discrimination" in the sense this board exists for.
Thinking the same thing myself.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

While this thread may not be in the original spirit of this subforum, it does point out serious obstacles in the way of effective organizing. This sort of thing has importance for more than just potential attorneys.. it's a part of the ideological war waged on the workers' movement and even other 'radicals' who in any way at all challenge the complete hegemony of the capitalists.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 02, 2007 11:00 am
This is hardly "discrimination" in the sense this board exists for.
Indeed; unfortunately this is one of those topics that is hard to place - though i agree - it is not in the spirit of the discrimination forum.

MOVED to Politics.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+November 04, 2007 01:09 pm--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ November 04, 2007 01:09 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 02:03 pm
Why would a revolutionary want to be a lawyer anyways?
that is not the point--

i wouldn't want to be a lawyer as it is, but the point is, regardless- it is a means of repressing revolutionaries as it is trying to exclude them from the practice for the purpose of securing interests of the bourgeois state. [/b]
Given that I personally know lawyers who were or are in revolutionary groups, I don&#39;t think its very effective... <_<

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+November 04, 2007 02:09 pm--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ November 04, 2007 02:09 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 02:03 pm
Why would a revolutionary want to be a lawyer anyways?
that is not the point--

i wouldn&#39;t want to be a lawyer as it is, but the point is, regardless- it is a means of repressing revolutionaries as it is trying to exclude them from the practice for the purpose of securing interests of the bourgeois state. [/b]
Um. Yeah.

It&#39;s obviously in the interest of the state and the law in general, and is entirely to be expected. It&#39;s not even discrimination in the classical sense, just a rational move. No one expects a judge who is pro-murder to do their job sentencing murderers.

You don&#39;t want capitalists in your "vanguard party" or your "socialist government" I suspect.

[RedCommieBear]

Hmm... That&#39;s weird because from what I remember, the Supreme Court ruled against those provisions (Baird vs. State Bar of Arizona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baird_v._State_Bar_of_Arizona)).


Originally posted by Wikipedia+--> (Wikipedia)A State&#39;s power to inquire about a person&#39;s beliefs or associations is limited by the First Amendment, which prohibits a State from excluding a person from a profession solely because of membership in a political organization or because of his beliefs.[/b]


Wikipedia
In this case, a law school graduate who had passed the Arizona written bar examination had applied to be admitted to the Arizona bar, but had refused to answer a question as to whether she had ever been a member of the Communist party. On that basis, the State Bar of Arizona refused to admit her.


Edit: Spelling/Grammar

[MarxSchmarx]

Hmm... That&#39;s weird because from what I remember, the Supreme Court ruled against those provisions (Baird vs. State Bar of Arizona).

Great post, RCB&#33;

However, that case is a little tricky. First, the court did not say the question itself is illegal. Only refusing to admit someone to the bar based solely on their refusal is.

Indeed, if you read the majority opinion, it says not admitting based solely on the refusal to answer the question is unacceptable:


Of course Arizona has a legitimate interest in determining whether petitioner has the qualities of character and the professional competence requisite to the practice of law. But here petitioner has already supplied the Committee with extensive personal and professional information to assist its determination. By her answers to questions other than No. 25, and her listing of former employers, law school professors, and other references, she has made available to the Committee the information relevant to her fitness to practice law.[Footnote 7] And whatever justification may be offered, a State may not inquire about a man&#39;s (sic) views or associations solely for the purpose of withholding a right or benefit because of what he believes.

Thus, if taken in the broader context of the rest of the application, the question itself, and presumably the applicant&#39;s answer, is unconstitutional.

Second, even if there were other pros and cons about the applicant&#39;s character than this question, if one were to make the case that the answer to this question was "the final straw" and led to the refusal to admission, it would still be an uphill battle.

This is because in the current judicial climate it is likely that courts will defer to the state bar assn re: the decision to refuse to admit, as long as the bar assn shows the decision based on a subjective assessment of the weight of evidence, rather than a litmus test. If Jacobin&#39;s record is otherwise stellar the bar would have a hard time proving this case. However, if Jacobin&#39;s record has some problems, AND he was a communist, then the bar could get away with refusing to admit, based on the majority opinion in Baird v. AZ Bar.

And of course the court can always over-turn itself.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 01:03 pm
Why would a revolutionary want to be a lawyer anyways?
Wasn&#39;t Lenin a lawyer at one point? :huh:

[LOTFW]

LOYALTY / OATHS /CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
18. Have you ever organized or helped to organize or become a member of any organization
or group of persons which, during the period of your membership or association, you knew was
advocating or teaching that the government of the United States or any state or any political
subdivision thereof should be overthrown or overturned by force, violence or any unlawful means?
. If your answer is in the affirmative, state the facts below._________

Duh&#33;&#33;&#33;

Of course you can&#39;t advocate being an attorney AND overthrowing the USA&#33;

Look, if you&#39;re a lawyer, it means you&#39;re going to go to an judge and ask him/her to grant your client a remedy for x, or an order for y. And you expect it be carried out. That means you also have to do the same with the orders of the judge. If you agree the judge has authority over you on Tuesday, you can&#39;t say he doesn&#39;t have authority over you on Thursday.

Revolutionist don&#39;t believe in the authority of law as determined by rulings of US federal judges. Lawyers have to.

The two can&#39;t be reconciled.

Duh&#33;

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Hammer+November 05, 2007 11:33 pm--> (Hammer &#064; November 05, 2007 11:33 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 01:03 pm
Why would a revolutionary want to be a lawyer anyways?
Wasn&#39;t Lenin a lawyer at one point? :huh: [/b]
Yes, Lenin attended law school and practiced law for a period of time.

I don&#39;t think it&#39;s whether or not a revolutionary would want to be a lawyer, it&#39;s not a bad idea anyway.