I usually think people jerk-off NDT too much, but this is actually resounding insightful and painfully obvious at the same time. Lawmakers study laws, right? The laws are intended to make and defend rights, and govern (if you're not a Libertarian) the harvesting and allocation of resources which of course goes back the rights deal. So we're basically dealing with resources and rights. But in order to procure and transport and in turn, allocate resources we need science - engineering, biology, geology, etc. In order to understand fitting rights for all you'd need to understand sociology, history, or even biology and psychology e.g. if you don't understand the physical process by which all human brains work, you're bound to cater to one demographic or not give due diligence to another. One might retort with, "well you have to do this or this person had this/that degree before they went to law school so it's not like they solely study law." But you're not required to. Sociology, English, or business will help get into law school, but there is no set requirement across all schools aside from a Bachelors, the LSAT, etc.

The big problem will law is that which a few have pointed out in their comments that they are rather complex, require a certain language, and can be difficult to interpret so as they have universal effect and are sound and insulated against inconsistencies or other flaws. But why are they complex? Well partially for the reason stated above, because it's not as easy as "Do this and you can't do this", but also because then only those will good law schooling (all law degrees are not the same) and are savvy in business (for those making laws for businesses: hence the large lot of Republicans...) will be capable of dealing with and making these laws. It's like speaking in code. Most people's brains would start melting while trying to read various federal statutes or Supreme Court decisions. Hell, how many have read or understand the iTunes User Agreement? How many laws have been legally "sound", but were completely illogical or alienated a certain demographic (Jim Crow laws, 3/5 compromise, or "state's rights" which is often simply a way to be able to legally get away with things many other people would consider unacceptable). The industrial revolution barreled ahead without much regard to how citizens of the environment will be affected. The future will look at our current age in a similar light (provided there is one).

Returning to the first point/paragraph, making laws is a vehicle to a destination: not the destination itself. People deserve protection from discrimination. People deserve to eat. People deserve education. It is a form of communication of valid facts ideas (or supposedly known ideas for all the anti-science or nihilists out there). If there are no known valid facts or ideas or we replace them with not valid "facts" or ideas, the laws are communication of gibberish. It would still technically be "law" in the same way one might consider Rihanna technically "music", but having little or no value compared to lyrics that don't focus on promiscuity or a beat that is rehashed and repetitive. A less insulting example would be if I were to speak in a language only understood by my friends: it is technically language, but it's not applicable to all. A directly pertinent example is if a lawmaker is making a law that directly affects a prairie, it wouldn't be unreasonable for that person to have considerable knowledge of the prairie biome or be bound by demonstrated scientific facts about said prairie. There will be people chanting, "but there are lobbyists, committees, subcommittees, etc", but they only advise and educate: lawmakers can ultimately saw "fuck you" the people of this area want this (which may only be a fraction of the prairie) or this or that statute allows me to do this. If it's in the interest of those in power and the committees and subcommittees then it's mostly likely going to end up as law. As it stands, there are bazillion ways to legally get around existing laws too. That's why many regulations on wall street have failed to bring the people to justice. You've got two sides people at the top speaking a language very few have full access to or understand.

The quote "Fucking right? As a criminology student I get offended everytime I'm not allowed to perform heart surgery on someone." actually conversely better applies to law. As demonstrated, people in law are often making laws on subjects or for people they know little or nothing about and if they do, they are ultimately allowed to ignore or diminish that input if they find a way to do so.

Yes, there are no laws preventing doctors or engineers from running for office, as stated they don't possess the savvy or knowledge of the said language nor do they have the money to make it available to the public (if they could even understand it then). And a law isn't a fucking law of physics. It's often calling the red crayon "red" as undoubtedly the only way to perceive that said color (it might be closer to brick red, rose, depending on the brand, etc).

Again, these lawmakers that have advisors, heads of specific departments, ARE NOT BOUND BY SCIENCE when making decisions; they'll make what they or their constituents deem fit. Some might say that's freedom, but someone else's freedom (or freedom to be ignorant) shouldn't infringe on my freedom whether that be to have equal access to resources, rights or transportation. Many laws, especially ones involving environmental ones (or rather the ones that ignore the environment), infringe on others freedoms, but are legally sound with the full education of a law or business degree.

I saw we restrict the "freedom" of those running for office for them to not merely be "advised" in a given topic, but have the inherent knowledge themselves. The "lawmakers" should have more of a supportive role in tell these people who understand better the facts and people how to create a binding language that applies to and is understood by all. You have to take specific tests for most positions, and I believe there should be a comparable test spanning a variety of subjects such as medicine, biology, engineering, climatology, business, and law in order for one to hold elected office (especially executive positions).

If we are to continue with a representative democracy, let us have people worth representing us.