As I said in the other thread you started on judicial oaths, you need to be very skeptical of anti-government web sites, as they often have incorrect or misleading information on them. It appears you are getting information on practice of law from one (or more) of these sites, and they are similarly flawed.
“Those first three mean anything, anymore? If so, why do i need a licence?”
Because none of them stand for the proposition that you have a constitutional right to practice law or that state laws on UPL or licensing of lawyers are illegal. Simply stated, none of these cases support your argument. This is a common problem on anti-government web sites. They take small snippets from a decision that sound good and then use that snippet out of context to support the argument they want to make. Let's look at each of those three cases.
“Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
‘There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights.’”
That general proposition is correct. However, there is no case law saying that the practice of law is a constitutional right. This case you have cited certainly has nothing to do with the practice of law. An ex-IRS agent was suing the government for reinstatement and back pay because he claimed he was wrongfully discharged. Since this case has nothing to do with UPL or licensing of lawyers it simply does not apply at all to the issue you are raising.
“Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239.
‘The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State.’”
This case is still good law, but it does not say, as you have stated, that states cannot require licenses for the practice of law. In this case, an applicant for the bar was denied because he had been a member of the Communist Party. The Supreme Court held that his membership in the Communist Party was not a sufficient basis to deny him a license. What the case actually says is this:
“A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. FN5 Dent v. State of West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 9 S.Ct. 231, 32 L.Ed. 623. Cf. Slochower v. Board of Higher Education, 350 U.S. 551, 76 S.Ct. 637, 100 L.Ed. 692; Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 73 S.Ct. 215, 97 L.Ed. 216. And see Ex parte Secombe, 19 How. 9, 13, 15 L.Ed. 565. A State can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral character or proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar, but any qualification must have a rational connection with the applicant's fitness or capacity to practice law. Douglas v. Noble, 261 U.S. 165, 43 S.Ct. 303, 67 L.Ed. 590; Cummings v. State of Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 319-320, 18 L.Ed. 356. Cf. Nebbia v. People of State of New York, 291 U.S. 502, 54 S.Ct. 505, 78 L.Ed. 940. Obviously an applicant could not be excluded merely because he was a Republican or a Negro or a member of a particular church. Even in applying permissible standards, officers of a State cannot exclude an applicant when there is no basis for their finding that he fails to meet these standards, or when their action is invidiously discriminatory. Cf. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220.”
You will notice that the court says that a state may require “high standards” for admission to the bar, an acknowledgement by the Court that states may indeed license lawyers and regulate the practice of law. In other words, not only does this case not support your argument, it actually works against you.
“Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925)
‘The practice of law is an occupation of common right.’”
I found no such statement in this case. Indeed, none of the four litigants in this case were lawyers nor did this case have anything to do with the practice of law or licensing of lawyers. This case is state tax case in which the state supreme court of Arkansas held, on rehearing, that the state income tax did not violate the state constitution prohibition(that existed at the time, I do not know if it still does) against taxing common occupations. As a result, this case also simply does not apply to the argument you are making on the practice of law, and to suggest that the case even holds that the practice of law is an occupation of “common right” (whatever that may mean) is misleading at best as the court made no such holding in this case.
As I said, you have to be very wary of what you read on anti-government web sites. Many of their arguments are flawed or misstatements of the law, as these three cases demonstrate. None of them actually supports the idea that there is a constitutional right for you to practice law or that a state may not regulate and license the practice of law.
I won’t go into the other cases you cited here, as this post is long already. Suffice to say, though, they don’t offer much suupport for your argument either. Again, the cases do not stand for what you think they do.