politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I know it's ridiculous, but you first need to define lawyer and attorney as representing ability to legally practice law. Then you can make falsely claiming this to be illegal. Without defining terms meant to define "represent practicing law," there's nothing to make illegal.
Not true. If you give a reasonable person the impression that you are a qualified practitioner, then you are making that claim.
That is not true. More than a few laws have been created, enforced and had judgements executed on them that were vague as fuck. Part of a judge's job is interpreting the law. Defining your terms adds clarity, but that is not a requirement. And were it a requirement, then you just move the goal post to defining your definition.
You can add the definition:
Well what do you mean by "referring"? In writing? Verbally? In specific contexts? While soliciting business? Do you have to specifically say "I am a lawyer" or does implying you are one counts?
What do you mean by "yourself"? Your qualifications? Your clothing/appearance? Your mindset? Your future goals? Your idealized self?
You get the point. If you had to list every single way that a law could be broken, and define every single term within it (and within that, and within that, and within that, ad nauseum), then absolutley no law would be enforceable. Some amount 9f colloquial understanding of terms is required, as is intent.
That's why people argue about the actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment, for example. They argue about the framers' intent, context, verbiage, historical precedent, practicality, etc. and lawyers and judges OFTEN come up with conflicting interpretation. That doesn't mean that the law gets thrown out. It means that judicial interpretation, precedent, practicality, and stare decisis (i.e. deference to the decisions of a higher court) all have a part to play in law.
It's not that they cannot be held by a court to be illegal, it's that it's not explicit and can be argued away by a good team. This means the expense to try such a case grows and puts pressure on them not to. Trying it and failing also weakens the current law when applied to normies, which they cannot have either. In this case I'm sure the combination of politics and these loopholes mean it wouldn't be tried.
Reasonable doubt would be the standard then. But also it's ultimately an academic question because no prosecutor that isn't being a pedantic and/or vindictive asshole will try someone for this statute violation based on someone erroneously representing their credentials but not acting upon that misrepresention. This law is meant to protect people from fraudsters claiming to be lawyers. Not for the law equivalent of stolen valor. It's still illegal (and sad/scummy) but no one is going to waste their time trying this case.