Did you know the last two Democratic Presidents had to surrender their license to practice law?

by mwg0735 Posted 2012/05/14 16:10:21

Related Topics: Bill Clinton, Obama, Barack Obama, Clinton, Illinois

Read all 20 opinions

1. The Wookie... “voluntarily surrendered” her license in 1993. Let me explain what
that means. 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 about five seconds before the state suspends (or
disbars) you.

2. 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.

3. Obammy...On March 13, 2007, a request was filed
with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission
asking the application to the bar that Barack Obama had filed in 1991 be
examined in light of information that had recently been made public.

Barack Obama suddenly decided to voluntarily surrender his law license.

If the ARDC investigates a
licensed lawyer, the proceedings become public record. but the ARDC
won’t punish or publicize findings against a lawyer who voluntarily
resigns.

Arent you glad we have Democratic Statesman like this running our country?

Jiorgia 2012/05/15 01:04:42

i wonder how many repubs with law degrees have done that...

reply
Rebel Yell 2012/05/14 17:32:43

+2
Pres. Obama did not surrender his law license. Like many congressmen who are lawyers, his license is in " inactive status". Congressmen and the President have no intention of pursuing legal ambitions while holding office as that would present many conflicts of interest. If you had researched further, you would have learned there is nothing sinister about it . Obama's license is easily retrievable. The bar records also says that Michelle Obama's license is " voluntarily inactive".

According to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois (IARDC) neither of them are practicing law at this time nor do their present jobs require a law license. Both records indicate no public record of discipline or pending proceedings or any evidence of malpractice or wrongdoing.

reply
mwg0735 to Rebel Yell 2012/05/14 17:55:30
Rebel Yell to mwg0735 2012/05/14 18:02:36

Yes, I realize you believe everything you read on the Internet. Big fan of youtube, too, as I recall.

reply
mwg0735 to Rebel Yell 2012/05/14 18:05:18
chicago to Rebel Yell 2012/05/14 18:15:57 (edited)

+1
Always amazed when people post something that is so easily determined as false. I guess it's just easier to post a falsehood, versus actually doing the work to look it up and confirm (one way or the other). Anyway, thanks for taking the time to investigate and get the actual facts on the table!

reply
mwg0735 to chicago 2012/05/15 02:23:11
chicago to mwg0735 2012/05/15 02:32:39

Lol love it! Repeating the same misrepresentation doesn't make it true sweety! And you know what? I think you know that, I think you're smart enough to know it's false (as a modicum in research will prove) but don't want to own up to it. Fair enough! Just remember a few other things "all over the internet":

1) the world will end in December 2012 (as predicted by the Mayans)
2) Lady Gaga is a hermaphrodite
3) Mr. Rodgers was a Navy SEAL sniper (my fiance loves this one!)
4) The ocean is salty because of blue whale sperm

reply
mwg0735 to chicago 2012/05/15 02:35:58
chicago to mwg0735 2012/05/15 02:38:10

Lol! You really are priceless! Funny thing is I'm a registered Republican! And I still think you know it's a false post, but you're kind of cute when you're grumpy! Anyway have a good night sweety!

reply
mwg0735 to chicago 2012/05/15 16:15:11
chicago to mwg0735 2012/05/15 16:56:21

+1
You're to smart to not know it! ;-)

reply
mwg0735 to chicago 2012/05/15 17:00:47
chicago to mwg0735 2012/05/15 17:13:50

;-)!

reply
maggiemay 2012/05/14 17:14:27

+1
I think anyone running for public office should have to go through a rigorous back ground check, and not by the party you are running in. Has to be an outside force. All records need to be available, and open to the public.
They should be given a set amount to run on, and once that money has been used you're done. No more outside influence by donors.

reply
mwg0735 to maggiemay 2012/05/14 17:56:19
Scott 2012/05/14 16:26:05

+2
Hadn't really thought of it, but it really does speak volumes.

Maybe I'm being thick - Who is Wookie?

reply
mwg0735 to Scott 2012/05/14 16:33:08
Scott to mwg0735 2012/05/14 20:00:10

+1
OMG - That is so f#^&ing funny! I can't stop laughing! Yes, ahem, I see the resemblance Thanks for the feedback..

reply
mwg0735 to Scott 2012/05/15 02:24:27