Thread: Is Barack Obama truly a lawyer? His statements to the Supreme Court say he is not.

Originally Posted by BullsLawDan

I don't know what his understanding of the Constitution is, but it's likely far better than the average American (who, by the way, cannot name even one Supreme Court justice). It's really, really ridiculous to say he has a "very limited" understanding of it based upon political statements.

As far as his statements here? He's pandering to his base. It's what (*)(*)(*)(*)ty politicians do. If you can't see that, you're as much of a rube to his carny routine as his supporters.

of course he is playing politics but that does not make him a constitutional scholar. Seems as if he was a recluse at Harvard and his grades seem to be state secrets

Originally Posted by jackdog

of course he is playing politics but that does not make him a constitutional scholar.

I never said it did. However, having a Harvard law degree does, at least as compared to the general population.

Seems as if he was a recluse at Harvard and his grades seem to be state secrets

So what? If you're claiming he didn't graduate from Harvard law, conspiracy theories forum is that way -->

Originally Posted by BestViewedWithCable

obama cant be a lawyer, he lies too much...

How can you say this ? Do you have any evidence for this he is not a lawyer ?

Originally Posted by Radio Refugee

It IS fair to refer to him as a constitutional scholar with no scholarly works. U of Chi calls him a 'professor' but I guarantee he's unique in his lack of qualifications. He's either a marginal fraud or a complete one.

These discussions were interesting.

"1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application.

A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" your license five seconds before the state suspends you.

“Voluntarily Surrendered” — what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to “Voluntarily Surrender” his license too".

Originally Posted by James Cessna

These discussions were interesting.

"1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application.

And, of course, this is a complete falsehood.

A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license.

Yes, actually, a lot of times it is. There is a lot of work and cost involved in maintaining a law license, and sometimes, especially if you no longer have any intention of practicing law, it's better to surrender it.

If you do a voluntary surrender, you can be reinstated later by reapplication. If you let your license lapse, it creates a greater risk that you could later be found to have been illegally practicing law. Doing a voluntary surrender creates a clear-cut line and acknowledges that you are intentionally quitting, instead of just negligently letting your license expire.

I know an older attorney who retired, and did it just so people would stop asking him for free legal advice.

No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" your license five seconds before the state suspends you.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

“Voluntarily Surrendered” — what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to “Voluntarily Surrender” his license too".

Actually, Bill Clinton was disbarred from the Supreme Court, and his license in Arkansas was suspended. He did not voluntarily surrender his license.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,35470,00.html

So, do you have anything from reality you'd like to talk about, or are we only discussing lies here?

Originally Posted by BullsLawDan

And, of course, this is a complete falsehood.

Yes, actually, a lot of times it is. There is a lot of work and cost involved in maintaining a law license, and sometimes, especially if you no longer have any intention of practicing law, it's better to surrender it.

If you do a voluntary surrender, you can be reinstated later by reapplication. If you let your license lapse, it creates a greater risk that you could later be found to have been illegally practicing law. Doing a voluntary surrender creates a clear-cut line and acknowledges that you are intentionally quitting, instead of just negligently letting your license expire.

I know an older attorney who retired, and did it just so people would stop asking him for free legal advice.

Ha-Ha!

So Barack Obama surrendered his license back in 2008 just so people would stop asking him for free legal advice?

Wrong!

Barack Obama surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application.

Originally Posted by James Cessna

Ha-Ha!

So Barack Obama surrendered his license back in 2008 just so people would stop asking him for free legal advice?

Wrong!

Barack Obama surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application.

Actually practicing attorneys have to do 30 hours of continuing education every two years and their yearly licensing fees are doubled..

Why not hang your license if you aren't practicing?

<<< Mod Edit: Flamebaiting >>>

Originally Posted by Radio Refugee

It IS fair to refer to him as a constitutional scholar with no scholarly works. U of Chi calls him a 'professor' but I guarantee he's unique in his lack of qualifications. He's either a marginal fraud or a complete one.

Obama will not release his college transcripts.

Why not? Could it be he never actually graduated from Harvard?

We have yet to hear from one person from Harvard who actually attended classes with this charlatan.

Originally Posted by The Wyrd of Gawd

Holder is wrong. The SCOTUS can only review a law if Congress authorizes it to do so. Read the Constitution.

You might want to take up your own advice as well as read up on 200+ years of history, court proceedings, court rullings and precedents.

Originally Posted by The Wyrd of Gawd

Don't all conservatives now the Constitution by memory?

Try Article 3 Section 2 = In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec1

Read the text of any public law and you will see that Congress authorizes the courts to review it. Without that authorization the courts have no jurisdiction. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php

Separation of Powers. As well as exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution as seen in a little tiny case called Marbury v. Madison. The Courts don’t need Congress power do their jobs.