Hoodwinked

there is always scandal surrounding presidents. he is not the first one and he won't be the last.

Many people do that, Im sure. But because Obama is the us Pres. they look under every single piece of carpet to find trash on him. Hes the usa Pres. for 4 more years.... live with it.

Soon, I hope. If not soon, then never. This only confirms the fact that he is an imposter. He does not deserve to even run for president, much less be elected. People have lost their minds... or it's one great, socialist plan that involves fraud and strong arm Mafia tactics. Or both.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/ FULL ANSWER We briefly addressed rumors about the status of the Obamas’ law licenses back in January 2010 in an Ask FactCheck titled “Clueless ‘Columbo.’ ” But a steady stream of questions about them has continued to flow to our inbox ever since. It’s true that neither the president nor the first lady holds an active license to practice law. A search on the website of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois shows that Barack Obama is listed as “voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law,” and Michelle Obama is listed as “voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law.” But it’s not true that President Obama “surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application,” or that Michelle Obama “ ‘voluntarily surrendered’ her law license in 1993 after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud,” as the chain email claims. Lawyers who voluntarily change their registration status to inactive or retired “may not practice law based upon their Illinois license or hold themselves out as being so authorized,” according to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. But James Grogan, deputy administrator and chief counsel for the ARDC, said that the Obamas were “never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings.” Voluntary Changes President Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991 and was admitted as a lawyer by the Supreme Court of Illinois on Dec. 17, 1991. Prior to being elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996, he worked as a civil rights lawyer at the firm formerly known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Four days after Obama announced that he would run for president in February 2007, he voluntarily elected to have his law license placed on “inactive” status, according to Grogan. Then, after becoming president, he elected to change his status to “retired” in February 2009. Michelle Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in 1988, and was admitted as a lawyer by the Supreme Court of Illinois on May 12, 1989. Following graduation, she joined Sidley Austin, a corporate law firm in Chicago. But a few years later, in 1994, while working for the Public Allies project in Chicago, Obama voluntarily had her license placed on “inactive” status. But the claim that the Obamas “surrendered” their licenses to avoid ethics charges has no basis in fact. Neither of the Obamas has any public record of discipline or pending proceedings against them, according to the online public registration records of the ARDC. We also confirmed that with Grogan, who said that the Obamas were “never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings.” The Obamas haven’t said exactly what prompted them to change the status of their licenses. But Grogan said that it was fairly common for lawyers who didn’t intend to continue practicing law to go on inactive status. It was actually one of the reasons, he said, that the rule was changed so that lawyers wanting to switch to inactive status no longer had to petition the Illinois Supreme Court to do so. In 2011, more than 12 percent of the state’s 87,943 registered attorneys were on inactive status (see Chart 2), according to the ARDC’s annual report for that year. In addition, prior to June 5, 2012, the Obamas would have been required to pay an annual fee of $289 (now $342), and take classes to satisfy the state’s Minimum Continuing Legal Education requirement, in order to keep their licenses active. Lawyers on retirement status, however, don’t have to pay an annual fee or take classes. And lawyers on inactive status also don’t have to take classes, but they do have to pay an annual fee of $105. Perhaps one reason for these false claims is that the online registration record used to list Michelle Obama as being “on court ordered inactive status.” But that wasn’t because of any wrongdoing. As previously mentioned, before 1999, an Illinois Supreme Court rule required active lawyers who wanted to change their registration status to do so by petitioning the court. ARDC website: Prior to November 1, 1999, former Supreme Court Rule 770 provided for a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer’s preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law. Obama’s motion seeking a transfer to inactive status was filed on June 8, 1994. And the court granted the request the following month, Grogan said. Grogan said claims that Michelle Obama went on inactive status to avoid disbarment are simply false. “We had to consent to this,” he said, noting that the ARDC would’ve brought up any disciplinary problems with the court. And he added that simply changing the registration status wouldn’t prevent the ARDC from bringing a case against a lawyer. (The online registration record no longer refers to Michelle Obama as being on “court ordered inactive status.” Grogan said that changes were made to the online registration system because other inactive lawyers had complained that they were also being suspected of wrongdoing.) And the Obamas could return to practicing law if they decide to, Grogan said. President Obama would have to submit a written or online notification stating that he intended to return to active status. And he would have to pay the registration fee for each year that he was retired. The process for Michelle Obama would be different, Grogan said, because she changed her status under old Supreme Court Rule 770. She would have to once again file a motion with the Illinois Supreme Court requesting to be transferred back to active status. But unlike President Obama, she would only have to pay the registration for the year that she requested to return to active status. Other Claims The email also claims that “Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago.” That’s technically true. As we wrote back in 2008, Obama’s formal title was “senior lecturer,” but the University of Chicago Law School says he “served as a professor” and was “regarded as” a professor. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama regularly referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor.” But the university later clarified his title in an official statement: UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined. The email also faults Obama for mixing up the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. “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.” But whether Obama was right or wrong depends on how his words are interpreted. In his State of the Union address on Jan. 27, 2010, Obama made the following statement: Obama, Jan. 27, 2010: Abroad, America’s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we’re all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else. However, the exact phrase “created equal” is not found in the U.S. Constitution. It is found in the Declaration of Independence: Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. But Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA, writing for the Volokh Conspiracy blog, said that the president was actually correct. Volokh, April 5, 2010: But of course President Obama’s statement is quite correct: The Constitution enshrines the notion that we are all created equal in the Equal Protection Clause, in the voting rights amendments, chiefly the Fifteenth Amendment and the Nineteenth Amendment, and in large measure in the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. (And don’t quibble that these are Amendments, and not the Constitution. As Article V of the Constitution says, the Amendments “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.”) Why dont you research things before just believing anything you read ?

I don't think any of these is true and just proves a point that we should not trust everything on the internet. I believe that America is well established enough to avoid such misconduct of any persons holding office including the President. But, I have to give the country credit for showing tolerance of such scandalous slurs.

I don't think it is going to make any difference because they have nothing better to replace him with. I certainly don't want Binden to take over or the ones under him. That is probably why Obama chose who he did to work under him.

Oiye! As if the rest of it wasn't enough, but a prez who doesn't know his constitution from his declaration!

A politician who tells lies, I'm both shocked and amazed. Surly you don't believe that such a person would get to where he is without telling a few untruths? I've never yet heard of anyone in any form of pokitics anywhere in the world who can be totally trusted and unbiased, it just goes with the job. I just thank my lucky stars that I'm not American, but then again we have Cameron, Clegg and Milliband.