ignorantia legis neminem excusatI have been known to say that a trained chimp could practice law (and can if he passes the bar).
On the other hand, I have noticed a bad case of why it is said that anyone who has themselves as a lawyer has a fool for a client coupled with why "A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing".
If you can say that waging war is somehow acceptable according to the Constitution.
And don't understand the significance of this quote (even with my little hint here):
The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)Then, you really have no reason to pretend you understand law.
Or to criticize my intellect.