Is it? Do you understand that my political ideology is basically Constitutional Originalism?
You're a Christian first. Your first allegience isn't to the Constitution of the United States but to God's word and righteousness.
And that it's based upon the idea that we have universal, inalienable rights?
You cannot preserve the rights of some by trampling on the rights of others, Idolater! I can't possibly work.
And that perhaps the one right which we all possess both individually and collectively, is the right to justice? Is this the political ideology that you note that I have?
It's the ideology that you think you have. I don't question your motives, I question your wisdom. You think it would make things better but it wouldn't. It's just more of the same thing that created the problem in the first place. When the government is the problem, more government isn't going to be the fix!
My political ideology is the United States of America Constitution.
There is no constitutional right to legal representation in civil matters.
My political ideology is informed by and founded upon the belief in our rights. I believe our rights come from God, but anybody who shares my belief in our rights----even atheists----can join me in this ideology (ideology is a plan to improve society).
The first right is the right to life. A famous atheist understood this and got it 100% correct when she said...
"The right to life is the source of all rights -- and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave."
The point being that no one has the right to ANYTHING that has to be produced or provided by someone else, including legal services.
There ought not be any need for lawyers in the first place, (except in the rarest of complex situations that most people would never find themselves in). Adding government lawyers would only enable and encourage the legal system to be complex and to get more complex. Pretty soon you'll need lawyers for the lawyers.
Universal legal representation is proposed in the OP as an improvement to our constitution (regime). As an improvement in securing justice for everybody who lives here. What we already have in our constitution is the best politics going, I am offering a proposed improvement to the best politics going. What I propose is consistent with my political ideology.
What you've failed to provide is any actual argument that would support your contention that it would improve things. Give me an example from the bible or from any other history where government paid lawyers are a good idea.
Like I said in my previous post, if you want to advocate a change in our current system, try advocating that if a plaintiff loses in a law suit, he has to pay to make the defendant whole. Meaning that if you sue someone and lose, you have to pay, not just for the defendant's legal fees, but for every dime he's lost as a result of your law suit. This way, people would stop predatory legal action that is based in the hope that the defendant won't be able to afford to defend himself in court. It would solve the exact problem you're try to solve without turning the legal profession into its own version of the public school system and without taking money from people who've earned it so as to pay someone else's legal fees.
