What is there about Democrat politicians and their seeming aversion to the practice of law? Bill Clinton was disbarred for committing perjury, Al Gore flunked out of Vanderbilt Law School, Teddy Kennedy was expelled from Harvard for cheating, and now, it appears that Barack and Michelle Obama have lost their Illinois law licenses.

The Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission, an agency of the Illinois Supreme Court, has a web site that indicates the status of all lawyers licensed to practice in that state. President Barack Obama, former president of the Harvard Law Review, adjunct teacher of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago law school, and self-described expert on the U.S. Constitution, is no longer a “lawyer.” For unstated reasons, he voluntary surrendered his law license back in 2008. The ARDC describes his bar status as: “Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law.”

A younger Michelle Obama (Photo: theurbangrind.com)

Michelle Lavaughn Robinson Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993, for unspecified reasons. The ARDC describes her bar status as: “Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law.”

So, Barack and Michelle are no longer licensed to practice law. This much we know for sure. What we do not know—and may never know, given the Obama’s penchant for secrecy concerning their resumes—is why these two legal powerhouses would “voluntarily” surrender their valuable law licenses. They spent almost 20 years apiece just getting to the point where they were eligible to take the Illinois bar exam. Most attorneys who take political jobs (technically, Michelle is unemployed) keep renewing their law licenses. And most states allow lawyers to place their licenses in “inactive” status, to eliminate the tiresome necessity of taking mandatory annual continuing legal education (CLE) training, but still require payment of yearly dues.

The young lawyers  (Photo:  WikiMedia)

Were the Obamas motivated by economy? By chucking in their Illinois law licenses they will save about 300 bucks (times two) per year. Perhaps they just decided they didn’t really want to be lawyers after all; a sort of midlife career epiphany. Or, maybe there were darker, more sinister reasons for their decisions to jump back over the bar.

In 2008, Barack Obama was a U.S. Senator; a pretty decent job, but not one with lifetime tenure. Many lawyer/senators have left office—either voluntarily or at the insistence of the voters—and returned to lucrative law practices in Washington K-Street lobbying firms. What could have motivated him to surrender his law license at that point in his career?

In 1993, when Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license, she was employed as Executive Director for the Chicago office of Public Allies, a non-profit “community organizing” operation. In 2005, she landed a quarter-million dollar per year position as Vice President and legal council for University of Chicago Hospitals. For some reason, she apparently felt she didn’t need a law license for those two jobs.

Barack’s abandonment of his legal credentials is even more puzzling, given his highly-touted “love for the law.” Remember all that campaign puffery about him being “Editor of the Harvard Law Review,” and “Constitutional Law Professor” at the University of Chicago Law School.

This photo of Barack Obama teaching in Chicago was posted in February 2008 at
PrestoPundit. In this class Barack Obama was teaching his students the principles
of Saul Alinsky. Notice the flow chart indicating the flow of money and power out
of productive businesses (“CORP”) and into the political class (“MAYOR”). The
heading at the top reads “POWER ANALYSIS”. The sub-heading reads
“RELATIONSHIPS BUILD ON SELF INTEREST”. The symbol on the arrow
between “CORP” and “MAYOR” is the “$” sign.

Of course, Obama wasn’t really a “professor;” he was merely an un-tenured visiting lecturer, and evidently not very good at it. According to information gathered by blogger Doug Ross, the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law spoke out on Barack Obama saying, “Professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings.” The unnamed professor explained:

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

The secrecy surrounding the background of our 44th president is unsettling for many Americans. Rumors abound, concerning his inability to produce an original birth certificate, and his mysterious tenures at Occidental and Columbia universities. After graduating from Columbia, he worked for a year for Business International Corporation; a notorious CIA front organization. The public and private lives of most of our recent presidents are pretty much open books, but Obama’s remains murky and enigmatic.