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

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by James Cessna, Apr 10, 2012.

  1. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is Barack Obama truly a lawyer?

    His latest statements to and about the role of the Supreme Court clearly say he is not.

    This latest account clearly says he is not.

    "The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence .... Not the Constitution."

    It is also evident that Barack Obama has no knowledge or understanding of what every first year law student is taught by his professors without exception and that is the famous case of "Marbury v. Madison."

    "We respect the decisions made by the courts since Marbury v. Madison," Eric Holder said Wednesday, referring to the landmark 1803 case that established the precedent of judicial review. "Courts have final say."

     
  2. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think he fully understood what he was saying was not true. I think he is playing to the uneducated left that will defend his every utterance as if fact. I think he is setting up a narrative for the next election.
     
  3. Clint Torres

    Clint Torres New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BO is not a true lawyer, his specialty is constitutional law which he has a deep understanding of. But his real asset to the USA is he is a master politician from Chi-town, where only the best politicians can survive without being corrupt. But now BO is in DC where the corrupt pull his strings and if he can turn to life on his own, he will have mastered the art of real corrupt politics. After all, the broadcast media tells the simple minded how and what to think. Dumb down media propaganda is abundent in the USA.
     
  4. Radio Refugee

    Radio Refugee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    Messages:
    24,800
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Add in the sycophantic Jurassic press and he can say ANYTHING without fear of getting busted. It's a potent combination, easily the most formidable re-election tool ever.
     
  5. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    34,707
    Likes Received:
    21,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Barack Obama was an "Instructor" of Constitutional Law... not a "Professor" as the News Media consistently miss-reports. Every time I hear the reference to him as a Law Professor I cringe. Either the media is too stupid to know the difference or they are purposely reporting it wrong.

    Professors have written works in their field, this is a REQUIREMENT, Barack Obama at the time had NEVER written anything on law and to this day still has not.

    As to his lawyer status, he may have passed the bar, but I doubt the score was good and he never did any practice worth noting.
     
  6. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He went to Harvard, their bar passage rate is above 90%, and anyone who passes does not get their "score." But thanks for exemplifying that this thread is nothing but ignorant trolling.
     
  7. Radio Refugee

    Radio Refugee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    Messages:
    24,800
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  8. fiddlerdave

    fiddlerdave Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,083
    Likes Received:
    2,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What garbage.

    There are a number of requirements and restrictions on lawyers if their license is active. "Surrendering it" has NOTHING to do with "charges" in his case, as you have NOTHING to substantiate this lie.

    They are the President an First Lady. They are not practicing lawyers.

    What is particularly funny here is seeing conservatives championing the idea that if you give up the government approval for a skill,, you lose the skill! :lol:

    Amazing stupid!

    We'll skip all the academic stuff that the Right Wing seems clueless about, like graduating "magna cum laude" pretty much means straight "A"s, and note the college "served as a professor" in the law school.

    Here is the law school itself, something the Right Wing blogs love to ignore!

    http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
    Poor James Cessna, lost in the Right Wing Blogosphere craziness!
     
  9. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Obama is an empty suit. He was threatening the SCOTUS Justices to go against their oath to uphold the Constitution.
     
  10. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Holder is wrong. The SCOTUS can only review a law if Congress authorizes it to do so. Read the Constitution.
     
  11. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Show us where the SCOTUS needs Congressional authorization to do their job. If that were true, then there would be an issue with separation of powers.
     
  12. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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
     
  13. henrypanda

    henrypanda New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Obama is thinking that people are not remembering him that's why he is spearheading the flack news
     
  14. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,593
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Stand up for the profession, Bulls. I assume you agree with his statements on the Supreme Court. How dare they strike down a law passed by an great majority of seven in the House of Representatives.

    The thread might be trolling but your knee-jerk reaction to protect President Obama is ludicrous.
     
  15. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It seems to me that if Congress can prevent the SCOTUS from making a Constitutional determination, then separation of powers is being messed with.

    Also, 26 States are challenging Obamacare. Wouldn't this constitute the States being a Party, and put this under original jurisdiction?
     
  16. Lowden Clear

    Lowden Clear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    8,711
    Likes Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The States brought this forward, did they not? Or am I not reading the Constitution?
     
    onalandline and (deleted member) like this.
  17. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    While I do, this thread has nothing to do with that.
    You assume incorrectly, of course. But that certainly doesn't stop you from assuming.
    What was knee-jerk about it? I merely pointed out that the post I quoted was nonsense. Obama went to Harvard, a school with a historically very high Bar passage rate, so assuming his Bar exam score was "low" is ridiculous. Furthermore, people who pass the Bar do not get their scores, meaning the poster was ignorant of how the Bar exam even works.

    I criticize Obama and in particular his big-government concepts quite frequently. However, I also criticize people with "Obama Derangement Syndrome," who are so blinded by hate they can't even get basic facts right, and who do far more harm than good to the cause of libertarians like me, who oppose big government on rational, sound, grounds.

    But while we're on the topic of "knee-jerk", here you are again lawyer-hating for no discernible reason other than that it gets your jollies.

    You're incorrect. The part of the Constitution you quote refers to Congress regulating or making exceptions to the fact that, in most types of federal cases, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction, as opposed to original jurisdiction. Congress can regulate, for example, that certain types of cases which otherwise would start in District court and work their way up should start in Supreme Court.

    That is what the Congress can "regulate" with respect to the Court's jurisdiction.

    You also ignore the fact that the clause clearly maintains the Supreme Court's "appellate jurisdiction" in all other types of cases (besides the types they just listed). Again - the only thing Congress can regulate is whether the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction; either way the Supreme Court can eventually hear the case under its jurisdiction.

    Much more important on the jurisdiction of the federal courts, including SCOTUS, is the first sentence of Article III, Section 2, in which the Constitution says quite clearly, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made"

    That means that the federal courts, and in particular the Supreme Court, have jurisdiction over any case in which the parties disagree about a law or Constutional concept. In this sentence, the Constitution grants the federal courts the power of judicial review. A concept which, by the way, predates our Constitution by hundreds of years.
     
    FactChecker and (deleted member) like this.
  18. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think Obama just has a very limited understanding of constitution. When he was a senior lecturer or adjunct professor at the University of Chicago Law School his course simply covered voting rights, which is not even a constitutional right. As far as I know that is the only course he ever taught
     
  19. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  20. BestViewedWithCable

    BestViewedWithCable Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    48,288
    Likes Received:
    6,966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    obama cant be a lawyer, he lies too much...
     
  21. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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
     
  22. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I never said it did. However, having a Harvard law degree does, at least as compared to the general population.
    So what? If you're claiming he didn't graduate from Harvard law, conspiracy theories forum is that way -->
     
  23. henrypanda

    henrypanda New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How can you say this ? Do you have any evidence for this he is not a lawyer ?
     
  24. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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".
     
  25. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
    Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
    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?
     

Share This Page