Much is being made across the blogosphere about VP candidate Sarah Palin’s dubious understanding of how the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech works. That she botched it badly is clear; the media doesn’t interfere with her freedom of speech by exercising its freedom of speech to criticize her.
Those inclined to rush to her defense argue that it’s not her fault for making a stupid lawyer mistake in her lack of understanding of the nuanced distinction between government action and private action, since she’s not a lawyer. The pro-Palin spin is that she shouldn’t be held to a standard of legal correctness that is beyond the common person’s reach. The anti-Palin spin is that ignorant people don’t get greater latitude in being wrong simply because they’re ignorant.
But this issue raises a larger issue, one that I’ve seen as problematic on every level of government for as long as I can remember. Whenever our politicians lack the education and knowledge to understand and appreciate how the law works, particularly the Constitution, they feel nonetheless empowered to expound on their personal view of how it should be, and what it is, in their view.
This present two really nasty problems. The first is the facile ad hoc reinvention of constitutional rights and duties by each individual elected official. Miraculously, they seem to keep coming up with some strange ideas that mesh seamlessly with whatever they want to do at any given time.
The second aspect of this problem is that whey the expound on the vision of law, and being elected officials they are naturally entitled to expound on every subject from nuclear physics to constitutional interpretation despite their slightly less that deep understanding of the subject, they do so publicly. The public, like the non-lawyer official, hasn’t the slightest clue whether they’re right or wrong, and accepts the credibility that comes with holding office at face value, attributing a perfect understanding of the law to the official. In other words, one ignorant person makes it up, and the rest of the ignorant people buy into it.
Now the lawyer-haters will rip me to shreds for calling non-lawyers ignorant. But I don’t call them stupid, because that has a different meaning. Rather, they are ignorant about the law, and there’s no reason under the sun why should be otherwise. There’s nothing wrong with that for the ordinary person. Indeed, it’s likely to make them much more popular at parties, and who doesn’t want to be the life of the party?
But for a person seeking or holding an office where dealing with the law is a fundamental component, the situation is different. They don’t get to make up the law as they go along. They don’t suddenly become legal scholars when elected to office, though this is a disease of epidemic proportions.
So the fact that Sarah Palin, the human being, doesn’t get the Constitution doesn’t trouble me at all. Why should she? But the fact that Sarah Palin, the Vice-Presidential candidate, was happy to shoot off her mouth and prove conclusively that she doesn’t grasp the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution is another matter.
I’m not suggesting that only lawyers belong in politics. But I am suggesting that non-lawyers don’t get a free pass to ignorantly opine, or even whine, about the law. And to be clear, this is not just a Sarah Palin issue, but one that has plagued us forever.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To me, this particular gaffe by Palin is more of a political science issue than a legal issue. I would be ok with it if a candidate did not know all about the standard of time, place, and manner restrictions. But I would expect anyone seeking a Constitutionally-created elected office to understand the basic nature of the document. A Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate, in my opinion, ought to have some idea that the document is a governmental charter that defines the limited role of government and that the Bill of Rights specifically enumerates some pretty basic rights of the people that the government shall not infringe upon.
Where do you draw the line between a sufficient understanding of the “basic nature of the document” and an insufficient understanding? And if a candidate gets the basic nature right, but the details wrong, in public statements, is that acceptable? Your idea seems to approve of them having a little knowledge, thereby coming under the adage that “a little knowledge is dangerous.” Is a little knowledge enough?
Scott, I don’t believe politicians must be lawyers or that lawyers make great politicians.
I do, however, believe that anyone who aspires to public office must have a foundational knowledge of how our country works otherwise how can they contribute in a meaningful way to effect change or make a compelling argument for things to stay the same.
There must be a willingness to learn before they open their mouths in public and undermine their own credibility
Being a lawyer doesn’t mean you have the answers, either. How many lawyers do you know who couldn’t give good answers. It turns on the individual, their intelligence, their command of relevant issues and the role the government plays in those issues.
Susan, I think that it’s overly simplistic to characterize the problem as whether all politicians should be lawyers. It would be foolish to suggest such a thing. But, at least on a national level, candidates have large staffs with at least a few lawyers on board, who should be capable of clarifying legal issues before they make statements that demonstrate a wholesale ignorance of the law. In the alternative, the candidates should exercise enough self-control to not render opinions on subjects about which they are ignorant. As you see, politicians being lawyers is hardly the only way to address the problem.
To the extent that a politician believes that, by virtue of their office, they are suddenly endowed with legal knowledge, this creates a dangerous situation. It is painfully naive to say that it turns on the individual, since each individual believes that they know what they are talking about or they wouldn’t be talking. Such vague and naive qualifications, like “a willingness to learn” don’t help at all.
Do you expect Sarah Palin to state that the problem with her lack of understanding about freedom of speech was “I refused to learn” or “I’m just too stupid to get it right?” Yet, “I’m not a lawyer” strikes the public as a perfectly acceptable to excuse to opine publicly yet wrongly.
Scott;
Susan stated my position. I must add the correct title should be criminal lawyers, because the Constitution is their stock and trade. Yes, the populace as a whole are ignorant, they shouldn’t be, absolutely no excuse. For Gov. Palin, no excuse either, she is a CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER. All persons that take an oath of office are bound to obey their oath whether elected or appointed. This can be another example of officials taking an oath without ever reading or understanding their state and U.S. Constitution. This applies to small town governments all the way up to central government. These people make decisions base on personal convictions, not the law and therefore are Constitutional Criminals. Stated by a non-lawyer, but a zealous patriot.
Your title question has it exactly backwards.
The law need not and should not be so complicated that only a lawyer can understand and apply it. Lawyer politicians make it that way in order to create work for themselves and their friends in the legal profession. That is wrong.
I propose a constitutional amendment to declare null and void any law or ruling which the average high school graduate can’t understand.
Silliness likes this belongs elsewhere. It’s just unworthy of any discussion.
The First Amendment According to Sarah Palin
"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and…