The president’s law license

Is it true that President Obama surrendered his law license several years ago?

I don’t know; I am just asking. I read it in a source the legitimacy of which I can’t vouch for. It may just be an Internet rumor. If it’s true, however, it has great importance for me who has been saying from his first campaign that is an impostor (no matter where he was born).

Does anyone know anything about this?

Advertisements

About Jacques Delacroix

I write short stories, current events comments, and sociopolitical essays, mostly in English, some in French. There are other people with the same first name and same last name on the Internet. I am the one who put up on Amazon in 2014: "I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography" and also: "Les pumas de grande-banlieue." To my knowledge, I am the only Jacques Delacroix with American and English scholarly publications. In a previous life, I was a teacher and a scholar in Organizational Theory and in the Sociology of Economic Development. (Go ahead, Google me!) I live in the People’s Green Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to The president’s law license

  1. JC Mullis says:

    According to the website http://www.snopes.com, which claims to be the “definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation”, it is true that both the President and First Lady have inactive law licenses in Illinois. This was done to avoid paying annual bar association fees, eliminate the need for malpractice insurance, delay requirements for attending continuing education courses.

    • Jim Kress says:

      Snopes is a well known Leftist repository of excuses for 0bama and his ilk. They have no credibility.

  2. James Kress says:

    The problem is that the records that would reveal the truth as to why the law licenses were surrendered (you can visit https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=248384688 for 0bama’s info and https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=1033437248 for his wife’s and see they were surrendered and are now inactive) has been sealed. 0bama refuses to unseal ANY of his records.

  3. Thank you for confirming the central fact.. JC. I think the annual dues are about $500. You don’t need malpractice insurance if you don’t practice, right? I don’t think he was disbarred but there is another small mystery here about the president. The reasons given for his inactive status don’t ad up for a multimillionaire.

    • JC Mullis says:

      Dr J, If I were President or even just a Senator, I would consider putting my Certification on in-active. First, it might be difficult to obtain the 30 hours of Continuing Legal Education required every two years, which if you don’t meet causes your credentials to be suspended. Also, an in-active lawyer does not have to perform court duties such as being assigned as a court appointed attorney (although I’m sure that using the excuse “I’m the President” would get you out of it). On the other hand, I would love to know what the Presidents grades were, and to read a copy of his thesis (Which I would compare to his two books).

    • Terry Amburgey says:

      The annual fee is $342.00 (with some exceptions such as active duty in the armed forces). The annual fee for inactive status (Michelle) is $105.00 and there is no fee for retired status (the President).

  4. Terry Amburgey says:

    Who knows what Jim meant by ‘surrendered’ since it’s not a term used by the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission in Illinois. What it says for the president is “Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law”. It also says “Public Record of Discipline
    and Pending Proceedings: None”. What it says for the first lady is “Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law” and ” Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings: None”

    Apparently one difference between voluntarily retired and voluntarily inactive involves annual registration. In the section on insurance the entry for the first lady states ” Malpractice Insurance: (Current as of date of registration;
    consult attorney for further information) No malpractice report required as attorney is on inactive status.” For the president it states ” Malpractice Insurance: (Current as of date of registration; consult attorney for further information) In annual registration, attorney reported that he/she does not have malpractice coverage. (Some attorneys, such as judges, government lawyers, and in-house corporate lawyers, may not carry coverage due to the nature of their practice setting.)”

    The president continues his annual registration while the first lady does not.

  5. Prof. Amburgey: You have seldom made so much sense. You must have been thinking about this issue.. I would guess, you worried about it for a while..

    • Terry Amburgey says:

      I was briefly interested in the difference between inactive and retired. Then I found the page with a description of each status and it’s bureaucratic and boring.
      @Jim Kress
      I can’t find the area to search for “the records that would reveal the truth as to why the law licenses were surrendered”. Could you please tell me where it is located on the site? Thank you. I would like to see what reasons are given by attorneys who haven’t had their records sealed.

  6. Bruce says:

    Interesting discussion. What is remarkable to me is how nothing is cut and dried about this guy. In a country where we find out nearly everything about prominent individuals, even the most simple details concerning Obama remain hidden. My ex-wife’s attorney found out more about me in a couple of weeks of digging than anyone has been able to assemble on the most powerful man in the world. Strange does not even begin to describe ho wierd this is.

    • Nowhere in the MSM do you see the slightest reference to the amazing anomaly between a president who came into office concealing his birth, college, draft, passport, and other official records, and the massive invasions of the privacy of everyone else on the planet that he has authorized.

  7. I feel the same, Bruce but feelings don’t cut it . I have even worse feelings: Mr Obama sounds to me like an immigrant , like me, like a foreigner. But, it’s only a feeling.

    The explanation for the fog around him may simply come from the fact that he is too vain to admit the obvious fact that he is an affirmation action wonder (of which there are numerous successful examples).

  8. Jim Kress says:

    To all: Obama has sealed all his historical records. School, medical, legal, etc. That is why you cannot find them.

    • Jim Kress says:

      Here’s a documenting link:
      http://www.wnd.com/2009/06/100613/

    • Terry Amburgey says:

      @Jim Kress
      Your post is not responsive to my question, let me repeat it:
      I can’t find the area to search for “the records that would reveal the truth as to why the law licenses were surrendered”. Could you please tell me where it is located on the site? Thank you. I would like to see what reasons are given by attorneys who haven’t had their records sealed.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        Ah heck lets just cut to the chase: Jim Kress is engaged in a time honored tradition of this blog — he’s just making crap up. Jacques has instituted a special rule for his blog. You can’t call someone a liar. Even if they are a liar. I assume that the ban extends to other similar words such as prevaricator or even fibber. So I’ll stick to a descriptively accurate hyphenated term. Jim Kress is a person who makes-up-untrue-statements-and-presents-them-as-true.

        The Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission does not have a system to search their records to find the reason an attorney has retired or gone inactive. There is no set of such public records that the president (or any of the roughly 12% of registered attorneys that have gone inactive) can have “sealed”.

        Just to be clear, what does it mean to have records “sealed” and what sorts of records can be “sealed” ?
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_sealing

        I think the most important aspect is “…records that would otherwise be publicly accessible as public records”. The original post by Jim Kress in this thread is…well I can’t call it a lie or a prevarication so how about the obvious: factually untrue.

        The same holds true for for other things as well. Income tax returns for example. Educational records for another. Jim Kress could publish his tax returns online if he wants but it’s not true that he ‘had them sealed’. I’ve asked Jacques to publish his undergraduate transcripts but he refuses to do so…and he hasn’t ‘had them sealed’.

      • Ah heck lets just cut to the chase: Jim Kress is engaged in a time honored tradition of this blog — he’s just making crap up. Jacques has instituted a special rule for his blog. You can’t call someone a liar. Even if they are a liar. I assume that the ban extends to other similar words such as prevaricator or even fibber.

        Lol. Dr A: would you agree that the Obama administration is terrible, even if the the alternative is much, much worse? If so, there is work to be done.

        This is Dr J. of this blog: Here is another rule Brandon (you are a source of rules, what a pity for a libertarian): No bad grammar allowed that is prompted by political correctness: “You can’t call someone a liar (bolding mine). Even if they are.” (bolding also) mine.

        Brandon: In our English language, a pronoun refers either to a single person or to a plural. Can’t be both unless you are too cowardly to say “he” and too lazy to say, “he or she.”

      • Golly gee whiz! Dr J takes me to task for my bad grammar:

        This is Dr J. of this blog: Here is another rule Brandon (you are a source of rules, what a pity for a libertarian): No bad grammar allowed that is prompted by political correctness: “You can’t call someone a liar (bolding mine). Even if they are.” (bolding also) mine.

        Brandon: In our English language, a pronoun refers either to a single person or to a plural. Can’t be both unless you are too cowardly to say “he” and too lazy to say, “he or she.”

        This is definitely an important correction, but in his haste to try and get revenge for my devastating article on the immorality of imperialism – the one that has Dr J feigning injury – he forgot to note that he is actually correcting the bad grammar of one of his former gophers at Stanford’s graduate sociology program, not one of UCLA’s star anthropology undergraduates. Can’t wait to see you on the gridiron this season, ladies!

  9. Terry: Its’ amazing that you would argue with my rules of civility about truth telling when you begin your last comment with a totally untrue statement:
    I HAVE NOT, NEVER REFUSED TO PUBLISH MY UNDERGRADUATE RECORDS. THAT’S “NOT.”

    I have no idea whether permission is required but, if it is, please, anyone take this public statement as permission to direct Stanford to deliver my undergrad grades (and everything else) to an avid public. Here is the relevant info;

    Jacques Jean Delacroix, 1967

    I have not done it myself, for two reasons:

    1 I don’t rise to every childish bait that would steal my precious time from me
    2 I would be accused of arrogance if I made my grades public myself because they are so good. (Little hypocrite that I am, I would be delighted if someone else did!)

    Please, go ahead and do it. IF YOU DON’T, TERRY, SHUT UP FOREVER ON THE TOPIC.

    In the meantime, I will keep remarking on the obduracy of Mr Obama on the matter. Let him make the same offer and I will shut up and do my best to spread the word..

    It’s not obvious why you, Terry would object to my rules of civility. There is no advantage except infantile satisfaction to calling someone else, a stranger, a “liar” Isn’t it enough to show that his statements are contrary to fact. What does imputing his motives add?

    My experience living in the belly of the beast (Santa Cruz, California) is that people don’t lie much in political matters but that their capacity for self-delusion is practically without limit. Arguing with liars is pointless; arguing with the self-deluded may just be useful (at least to third parties).

    I agree with your position on Mr OBama’ records regarding his inactive lawyer status. If there is no such thing as sealing, Jim should refrain from stating that the president “sealed” those records (those record, precisely). And If he can’t come up with the straightforward evidence you request, he should make the effort to correct himself publicly.

    Stop sobbing, Terry!

    • There is a difference between the legal and political obligation that a candidate for public office has in disclosing the contents of his official records, and the obligation of an ordinary citizen (even an immigrant citizen like Dr J). There are plain, Constitutional requirements for public office. And there are practical considerations such as the ordinary prudence exercised by any employer in checking a candidate’s qualifications for the job he proposes to do. All of these legal, political, and practical requirements were simply swept away in the 2008 and 2012 elections for the sake of pure expediency. The U.S. already has good cause to regret it, as Constitutional prohibitions on seizure of private information have multiplied; and will undoubtedly have more occasions for regret in the coming years. I would like to see a discussion of suitable remedies.

  10. Terry Amburgey says:

    Jacques you have an amazing ability to see neither the trees nor the forest. You have refused to publish your undergraduate transcripts; I’ve asked you to publish and you have not. Pretty straight forward is it not?

    Why have I asked you to do this? I assure you I really could care less. It’s to make a point (as a ex-professor I’m flabbergasted that you don’t know this). Student records are not public records. I can’t call Stanford and say ‘Give me a copy of Jacques’ transcript’. Where the hell you got the idea that somehow I can print your comment and take it to Stanford and say ‘See here is Jacques public permission to give his transcript to me’ is beyond me. YOU have to do it.

    I’d give you the link to the Stanford registrar but you don’t do links so I’ll copy/paste

    Alumni enrolled previous to 5 years ago:

    Please request transcripts in one of three ways:
    1. Go to the Student Services Center located at Tresidder Memorial Union, 2nd floor, to fill out a Transcript Request Form.
    2. Print out a Transcript Request Form (you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader), fill it in completely, and sign. If you wish to have your official transcript sent electronically, indicate this in the special instructions portion of the Transcript Request Form. (Note: faxed requests for eTranscripts may take up to 24 hours). You will also need to include a send to name and the email address of the recipient. Mail or fax (650-721-1585) the completed form to the Student Services Center.
    3. If you are unable to print the online form, send a letter to:

    Student Services Center
    459 Lagunita Drive
    Tresidder Memorial Union, 2nd floor
    Stanford, CA 94305

    Your letter must include the following: Full name under which you were registered at Stanford
    All former surnames (maiden and married names)
    Your student number (if available)
    Your date of birth
    The date of your degree conferral (or, if you received no degree, the last year you attended the University)
    Whether you were an undergraduate, graduate, or coterminal student
    How many copies of your Stanford transcript you wish to have sent
    The names and addresses of the intended recipients
    Your signature
    Any special processing instructions
    If you wish to have your official transcript sent electronically, indicate this in your letter, along with a desired email address and contact name of the recipient.

    “I have not done it myself, for two reasons:

    1 I don’t rise to every childish bait that would steal my precious time from me
    2 I would be accused of arrogance if I made my grades public myself because they are so good. (Little hypocrite that I am, I would be delighted if someone else did!)”

    The sweet irony! Your time is precious but the president of the united states has nothing better to do!!

    There’s how to get a transcript, pdf format no less. Have a copy sent to me and I’ll publish it for you. Please, go ahead and do it. IF YOU DON’T, JACQUES, SHUT UP FOREVER ON THE TOPIC OF THE PRESIDENTS GRADES.

    As to your rule on calling liars liars, I don’t object. It provides an opportunity for utilizing elaborate (if not downright baroque) word constructions to call liars.

    • Prof. Amburgey: I stand instructed but my point remains about the President’s unexplained obduracy.

      You have convinced me that getting a transcript today from Stanford is time-consuming. I was not aware of how time consuming it was. The last two times I tried, here is what happened: At U Cal Berkeley, I was given all the info about someone’s PHD without any trouble . May be it’s because it is a public school. Maybe it’s because it was ten years ago. At any rate, that was a public record.

      Seven years ago, I verified someone’s credentials at another public school (I don’t remember which). I was not able to for one reason alone. It was because I had to provide the persons’ social security number. (My chairman refused to let the secretary type it in while I turned my back!)

      Excuse me; I thought all along that Mr Obama had an army of gophers to to this time-consuming stuff for him. I guess my impression was wrong: He sits all by himself all day in his oval office sending emails right and left to try and right wrongs. (That would explain a lot about the success of his administration!)

      The fact that Delacroix is too busy, or too lazy to procure and post information that no one is interested in in no way explains why the president does not cause to procure and post the corresponding information about himself that hundreds of thousands want to see.

      He is hiding something. (But, as I said recently it may just be low grades because he is a vain SOB.)

      Your intervention here is so strange I wish you were lying. I know you are not, unfortunately.

      PS I see neither the forest nor the tree? I like it; wished I thought of it myself. May I use it?

  11. Terry Amburgey says:

    “…explains why the president does not cause to procure and post the corresponding information about himself that hundreds of thousands want to see.”

    You’re undoubtedly right. There’s a tabloid industry that thrives well enough to convince me that there are millions of people who want to see any number of things about anyone with any sort of name recognition. I don’t think you’re one of the celebrity voyeurs though, I think you’re driven by political enmity. I empathize, I feel political enmity towards quite a few politicians.

    Look at it from the president’s point of view. What does he gain by giving personal information to his political enemies? Nothing. What does he gain from withholding it? His enemies start talking silly and provide more and more support for the narrative that they are crackpots, cranks, and (in the nontechnical sense) morons. A decent strategy given that so many of his political enemies are crackpots, cranks, and morons to begin with.

    What I don’t understand is why you spend so much time whinging about his grades when you could zero in on something which does indicate a character flaw…and something you used to know quite well.

    Was President Obama a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago? No. He was a senior instructor. As you well know there is a huge difference between people on the tenure track and those that are not. When the law school says he “…served as a professor in the Law School” they’re using the term as a job description not a title. His description of himself as a professor is taking advantage of a status that he knows is misleading. I think that indicates some small flaws in his character.

  12. Terry Amburgey says:

    Oops Senior Lecturer, not instructor.

  13. Terry:

    Your explanation of why the president does not shut up and humiliate his silly critics by showing his grades will stand on its own three wobbly legs!

    I believe that when I had a radio show, single-handed, I caused Leon Panetta to modify his Wikipedia entry which described him as a “scholar”. The word was mysteriously taken out less than one week after my show criticizing him. (Panetta and his family come from my area of the country.) I know well that kind of sweetness.

    But, I am not interested in Mr Obama’s character flaws. I could be persuaded that he does not have grave ones (unlike, say, the certified liar, Bill Clinton, unlike the sex maniac Straus- Khan who was slated to become the President of France.) He is probably well-meaning overall. I am interested in the subject of why he is President of the United States at all. At the time of his first campaign, he had accomplished nothing in his life. (He may have written two successful books,but I mean,”accomplished” from a political platform. ) I think you will agree that he received the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing he had done.

    One and half term later, Mr Obama still has done very little except pass the Obamacare package of laws . Perhaps he didn’t even do this. It may have been a complete Pelosi production. It looked like one at the time. Aside from my substantive criticism of Obamacare, it’s turning into a rout that should have been predicted. How in the world doe any country implement 2,500 pages of law? His main accomplishment seems to have been to get accepted the i principle that the President of the United States can have American citizens killed on his say-so as long as they are abroad.

    Please don’t trot out the Bin Laden killing. It’s true that he could have said “no.” I grant him that as an accomplishment.

    Again, it’s mysterious that he is president at all.

    Here, I have given you the introduction for a piece entitled: “Three Fourth of the Way: The Accomplishments of the Obama Administration” Don’t concern yourself with selecting accomplishments that conservatives would like. Just talk about anything he did deliberately in his role as president.
    Please, make it an essay that I will post. Don’t limit yourself to a comment.

  14. Terry Amburgey says:

    Will you, for the sake of discussion accept this as being true? “Peter Delaney (aka Pierre de la Ney du Vair), a Louisiana born SS-Haupsturmführer in SS-Standarte Kurt Eggers who is believed to have served in Légion des Volontaires Français (LVF). He met Monti and probably arranged for him to enter the Waffen-SS. Delaney was killed in 1945.”

    Do you believe the ‘war on terror’ is legitimate e.g. “Former U.S. President George W. Bush articulated the goals of the “war on terror” in a September 20, 2001 speech, in which he said it “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” [11] In that same speech, he called the war “a task that does not end”, and was used by President Bush in his 2006 State of The Union address.”

    • Prof. Terry: “Pierre de la Ney du Vair ” sounds like one of those pretend-French names they use in bodice-bursting romance novels for lonely women. Has it really got to this in your life? Even with the occasional blind female student who enrolls in your class and is enthralled by your manly voice?

      Is this your clever way to turn down my invitation to write about President Obama’s accomplishment? Are you using this artless subterfuge to change the subject because you are ashamed? If you are, it shows decent rationality.

      In case you are serious, I must say that I have no current interest in the topic you propose.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        Ok. I thought discussing his Delacroix rated main accomplishment would interest you..”His main accomplishment seems to have been to get accepted the i principle that the President of the United States can have American citizens killed on his say-so as long as they are abroad.”

  15. Terry Amburgey says:

    @Brandon
    “Lol. Dr A: would you agree that the Obama administration is terrible, even if the the alternative is much, much worse? If so, there is work to be done.”

    Yes I would. I’m still reeling from the support of an unconscionable surveillance state by the establishment of the Democratic Party. Even though the president was only a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago he should damn well know better. As for Sen. Feinstein….

  16. Terry: As you know, we live in different informational spheres. (Y This may make our discussions worth doing.) Forget my value judgment embedded in the words “main accomplishment.” Is it true or not that the Obama administration claimed the right to kill US citizens abroad on the presidential say-so? We are many lost souls who have this impression.

  17. Terry Amburgey says:

    It appears that “The Supreme Court has held that the military may constitutionally use force against a U.S. citizen who is part of enemy
    forces. See Hamdi, 542 U.S. 507, 518 (2004) (plurality opinion); id. at 587, 597 (Thomas, J., dissenting) Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38.”
    [BTW, above I gave an example of a U.S. citizen fighting alongside the Nazis in WWII that was killed]

    The question becomes whether or not Al-Qaeda & similar groups are enemy forces. If you believe that the “Authorization for Use of Military Force (“AUMF”), Pub. L. No. 107-40, &2(a), 115 Stat. 224, 224 (2001).”
    constitutes a congressional declaration of war then it’s straightforward, terrorist @ssholes can be killed, nationality doesn’t matter. If, like Brandon, you believe there is no war because war was never declared it’s not so clear.

    • Thank you.
      o, we agree on the facts except that you say it’s not Mr Obama’s fault. He was just following Bush’s example when he killed al Akwli in Yemen. And also when he killed the same guy’s sixteen-year old son later (a different assassination). Right?

      And if he could find a Supreme oCurt decision authorizing it would also be OK for the President to kill US citizen opponents on US soil, say tea party members? Just asking.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        My turn now. Is it legitimate for a lowly public official such as a lieutenant in a police department to order the killing of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil?

      • Terry:

        Of course not.

        The fact that it’s a “lowly public official” makes it no quite as bad as if it were the highest elected official in the land.

        Where are you going with this? Now, you have my attention. I think you are about to reveal something important.

  18. Terry Amburgey says:

    Although it’s not a common occurrence, law enforcement snipers sometimes kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. I’ve put in a link to one such killing (nothing special just the first one I saw in the search results). Someone gave an order to shoot Kendall Carroll; the news report doesn’t say who. I would guess an officer in the New Mexico State Police.

    I’m surprised at your answer. I would’ve guessed that conservatives such as yourself would support SWAT snipers.

    “The fact that it’s a “lowly public official” makes it no quite as bad as if it were the highest elected official in the land.”

    I have the opposite reaction (no surprise I guess). If the local head of a SWAT team can order that a U.S. citizen be killed, the President of the U.S. can certainly do the same as C-in-C.

  19. Terry: In your eagerness, you just revealed something important.
    When a police official orders a US civilian killed, that’s a big bureaucratic defect. Bureaucracy periodically run amok. (See the IRS). Political power must whip it back into shape. When the highest elected official in the land claims the right to kill citizens on his say-so, there is no peaceful correction possible. It’s not the antechamber of fascism, it is fascism. It’s Hitler, not King Georges. The kings of England never even claimed the right to do so (CLAIMED).

    As is often the case, with your comment, I am not sure I know what you think. Here is a test: Would it have been OK for G. W. Bush to kill American citizens as he pleased?

  20. This is Jacques Delacroix: I am having repeated trouble login on my own blog. I don’t know why. Just understand that I am not ignoring any of you and that I have not checked out!

  21. I’m curious as to whether liberals and progressives in general are suffering any ‘cognitive dissonance’ as a result of ‘still reeling from the support of an unconscionable surveillance state by the establishment of the Democratic Party.’ Shouldn’t this at least give them some pause as to the wisdom of the political choices they have made?

    • Terry Amburgey says:

      @http://kamprint.com

      I can’t speak for liberals & progressives as a whole. Personally I’m suffering from severe cognitive dissonance and have great doubts as to the wisdom of political choices I’ve made. Given some of the commentary I’ve read on progressive sites, I can safely say I’m not alone.

  22. To kamprint: Terry, a liberal who intervenes often on this blog, seems to be shocked; says he is. I believe he is. Is he following through on his mind? I don’t know.

  23. Just to make sure all understand my response to Terry’s challenge to publish my undergraduate grades as I think the president should do without delay: If he, Terry, can hand me the phone with the request that I say “go ahead, open up my grades,” I will do it. If he gives me a form I only have to sign to give my grades to anyone, I will sign.

    I am assuming the president would be able to do either if he wanted to.

    Am I assuming too much?

    Is this silly?

    By the way, the second main reason I don’t do it myself is humility. I don’t wish to impose on Prof. Terry, in addition to the fact that I am a much better looking old guy than he is, the knowledge that I was a better student too. The first reason is that no one in the world wants to see my grades.

    • McHenry says:

      The president has no right to order killings. This is a very unnerving power even if you think he’s an okay guy for the following reason: members of the government (I forget who) claimed they never thought the patriot act would be so harmful because they were sure no one would actually use it to construct a massive public surveillance machine.
      And here we are. I’d like to believe our government has the best interests of rights and citizens in mind but I’m with the Founders for keeping a close watch.
      You have to assume the worst because they show us that it’s true. And trust in the president is no different. Especially one who takes liberties with his credentials and hides his transcript as though he did not already have the job.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        @McHenry
        So do you disagree with the supreme court, the Authorization for the Use Of Military Force passed by congress or both?

    • Terry Amburgey says:

      @Jacques
      “…in addition to the fact that I am a much better looking old guy than he is…”
      That is a pretty low hurdle. Are you proud of being more sensible than Kim Jong-Un?

  24. Terry: Aside from the exact words of the Supreme Court authorization, we have a constitutional tradition. It says clearly that Americans may not be assassinated on the President’s say-so.

    Do you agree with this statement? Yes, No, Maybe

    Many of us, right and left, would guess that the Supreme Court never envisaged at all the authorization to use military force (to kill) against American citizens not actually holding weapons. I refer to the sixteen-year old son of the American-Yemeni terrorist leader (what was his name, I forget?) The son was ordered killed by the Commander-in Chief, two weeks after his father was killed. He was thus NOT collateral damage.

    This kind of action freezes my blood without surprising me much because I have thought for a long time that liberalism is the teenage face of fascism.

  25. Terry Amburgey says:

    @Jacques
    “Terry: Aside from the exact words of the Supreme Court authorization, we have a constitutional tradition. It says clearly that Americans may not be assassinated on the President’s say-so.”

    No. Let’s start with ‘assassination’:
    “Assassination is the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons.[1][2]
    An assassination may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives; it is an act that may be done for financial gain, to avenge a grievance, from a desire to acquire fame or notoriety, or because of a military or security services command to carry out the murder.”

    The word assassination is not anywhere in the constitution. Check for yourself. Your statement is clearly false. Lest you claim I’m picky about the specific word, murder, kill, et cetera also don’t show up. The supreme court is the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not constitutional. You and I don’t count for anything. It may change it’s mind, stare decisis be damned. Until then it is constitutional to kill a U.S. citizen who is part of enemy forces. Don’t like it? Start working on an amendment.

    As for who counts as ‘enemy forces” you stated your support for the ‘Auhtorization…’ numerous times while arguing with Brandon et al. about what constitutes a declaration of war. You don’t have a leg to stand on. Not that it’s at all unusual for you to not have a leg to stand on….

  26. Terry Amburgey says:

    Back to SWAT snipers….
    1. what is their task? “In shooting, the law enforcement SWAT or hostage rescue sniper aims to stop with certainty the life-threatening activity of the target. This is often achieved with one wellplaced high-velocity round to the target’s head, heart or spine from a distance of 50-150 yards – a very different situation to the high-speed, close-quarter defense-of-lifegunfights of the street cop.”
    2. who makes the decision? “It should be remembered that the snipers are just one of many “options” in the incident commander’s proverbial toolbox. The tactical decision process of where and when to deploy the sniper elements will be made by the Incident Commander and/or the Sniper Group Commander. However, in many cases, since the snipers will often have
    the best picture of the unfolding situation, it will be up to the individual snipers to “advise” the command element on how they could be best utilized once they have moved up into a position of advantage.”
    http://www.operationalstudies.com/sniper/SniperArticles.pdf

    I’m truly surprised that you are unhappy about such a recurrent act [a mid level officer in a local police force deciding to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil], I thought all conservatives were knee-jerk supporters of all things law enforcement. I guess I was wrong, every time there’s a SWAT sniper kill, the conservative blogosphere goes ballistic eh?

    • McHenry says:

      @terry

      I agree with the use of force, but I think there needs to be very specific restraints on that force. Enemies? Sure. Americans? Maybe.
      I defiantly do not agree with giving one man at the head of a whole country the ability to order the killing of another man.
      And swat snipers are much preferable for that reason, their reach is much smaller. Do I like it? No. But it is more comforting than the global reach of drone sniping.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        @McHenry

        “I defiantly do not agree with giving one man at the head of a whole country the ability to order the killing of another man.”

        Sorry, but that’s exactly what the constitution does in making the president the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

        “I agree with the use of force, but I think there needs to be very specific restraints on that force.”

        There is; only congress can declare war. If congress were to repeal the “Authorization for Use of Military Force (“AUMF”), Pub. L. No. 107-40, &2(a), 115 Stat. 224, 224 (2001).” then the legal foundation for drone strikes goes away. Speak to your legislative representatives.

        For quite a while terrorist activities were treated as criminal matters not military matters. It’s possible that we could return to that stance [although I personally don’t favor it].

      • McHenry says:

        Defiantly should read definantly. Sorry, I try to edit quickly but the iPhone has a real bastard of a spell check that changes whole words when you miss a letter, often totally missing the intended meaning.

  27. The Supreme Court, in its authorization, never contemplated the possibility of the president ordering the (non-assassination) cold blooded, deliberate killing of American citizens holding no weapons at the time of such killing . This is absurd. Good thing you don’t need legs at all!

  28. There was a n article today in the WSJ about the progressive militarization of police forces with SWAT teams . Awful, disgusting, unacceptable, At least, in civilian situations, there are usually cameras on the spot.

    Terry you never commented on the no (non-assassination) killing of Awakli’s sixteen-year old son in Yemen. Do you have the good sense to be troubled by it?

  29. Terry Amburgey says:

    @Jacques
    “Terry you never commented on the no (non-assassination) killing of Awakli’s sixteen-year old son in Yemen. Do you have the good sense to be troubled by it?”

    No. Sixteen-year old murderers are tried as adults all the time. I’m not troubled by that either. One less terrorist in the world. Please spare me the crocodile tears. Not long ago a 17-year old U.S. citizen armed with candy & tea was killed by an armed vigilante. Did you have the common decency to be troubled by it? No.

    “The Supreme Court, in its authorization, never contemplated the possibility of the president ordering the (non-assassination) cold blooded, deliberate killing of American citizens holding no weapons at the time of such killing.

    Fascinating. You recently opined that you weren’t competent to read legal documents [too much ‘legalese’ I guess] but now you’re a supreme court expert with unique insights into what they did or did not contemplate in coming to the decision. We know you didn’t actually read the decision so what’s the basis of your unique insights? Fox News?

  30. Terry Amburgey says:

    @Jacques
    “There was a n article today in the WSJ about the progressive militarization of police forces with SWAT teams . Awful, disgusting, unacceptable, At least, in civilian situations, there are usually cameras on the spot.”

    Progressives have been worried about this sort of stuff for ages. Better be careful. If you start developing a conscience you could lose your teapublican decoder ring.

  31. Terry: You are thus comparing the murder, under unknown circumstances, of a teenager by a private individual (a”vigilante”) to the premeditated killing (not an “assassination,” of course) of a teenager abroad by the constitutional head of this republic.

    I am reading you right?

    No crocodile tears, here , he was probably a very bad kid. My point is that a random murder by a private person does not threaten the basic order of this society. The fact of non-assassination by the president and the claim that it’s legitimate undermines everything constitutional about this society, I think.

    If this is accepted, not much else matters.

    On the other thing, I am not substituting my judgment for that of the Supreme Court; I am speculating that the authorization never contemplated the possibility that it would be used to kill Americans on the president’s say-so.

    Why not contradict me on this specific point? “Of course the authorization includes….”

    I wish I believed you are playing dumb. I suspect you are not. You are doing more than I would ever dare do to illustrate my belief that liberalism is the antechamber to fascism. (I am not using the term as an insult. I am using it in its well defined political terms. There is a long essay on this blog defining fascism.)

    Any other left-inclined readers: Imagine a more intelligent, harder version of President Bush (junior) occupying the White House and claiming the right to kill Americans on his say-so!

    We never learn, right? And the IRS did not so do anything wrong recently. Just went about doing its job.

  32. Terry Amburgey says:

    @All

    Unlike Jacques, I like original sources and (even though I’m the product of the public educational system for K through 12) I’m not intimidated by legal documents. I just finished reading the decison by SCOTUS above. There is an excerpt that impressed me…

    “Striking the proper constitutional balance here is of
    great importance to the Nation during this period of ongoing
    combat. But it is equally vital that our calculus not
    give short shrift to the values that this country holds dear
    or to the privilege that is American citizenship. It is during
    our most challenging and uncertain moments that our
    Nation’s commitment to due process is most severely
    tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our
    commitment at home to the principles for which we fight
    abroad. See Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144,
    164–165 (1963) (“The imperative necessity for safeguarding
    these rights to procedural due process under the gravest of
    emergencies has existed throughout our constitutional
    history, for it is then, under the pressing exigencies of crisis,
    that there is the greatest temptation to dispense with guarantees
    which, it is feared, will inhibit government action”);
    see also United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 264 (1967) (“It
    would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense,
    we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties
    . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile”).”

    More later.

  33. Terry Amburgey says:

    @ All
    Jacques has switched his speculations; originally it was about SCOTUS, now it’s congress.
    “I am not substituting my judgment for that of the Supreme Court; I am speculating that the authorization never contemplated the possibility that it would be used to kill Americans on the president’s say-so.”

    Before we attempt to determine what congress contemplated, let’s see what it finally concluded.

    “Preamble
    Joint Resolution
    To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
    Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 1 – Short Title

    This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’.

    Section 2 – Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

    (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

    I don’t see any exceptions for terrorists that are U.S. citizens. Neither did the supreme court.

    (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
    (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.”

  34. This discussion is about as interesting as this blonde chick I was chatting up at my shitty college bar last weekend (I went with the Jewish Persian brunette).

    I have two thoughts on this.

    1) Can anybody give me a concrete definition of “terrorism”? I ask because it seems like some of you are still a bit foggy on the issue and how it pertains to state policy.

    2) The second one is directed solely at Dr A: chattel slavery and the ethnic cleansing campaigns of the 19th and 20th centuries were also legitimized by the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. In your eyes, did government decree make these policies just? If not, what did? If these policies were unjust, and the government still legitimized them, what does that tell you about the limits of government power?

  35. Terry Amburgey says:

    “… he forgot to note that he is actually correcting the bad grammar of one of his former gophers at Stanford’s graduate sociology program, not one of UCLA’s star anthropology undergraduates.”

    Bah. I was a Research Consultant for his consulting firm. It says so on my curriculum vitae. It’s somewhat depressing to realize that after decades, I’m still doing his research for him only now I don’t get paid for my labor.

  36. Terry Amburgey says:

    “…chattel slavery and the ethnic cleansing campaigns of the 19th and 20th centuries were also legitimized by the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. In your eyes, did government decree make these policies just?”

    No. It did make them legal. I try very hard to not confuse legality with justice although I sometimes slip.

    “If not, what did? If these policies were unjust, and the government still legitimized them, what does that tell you about the limits of government power?”

    It tells me that rascist societies will create rascist governments and rascist government policies. A tidbit from another post: “The proportion of people expressing anti-Black attitudes,” they write, “was 32 percent among Democrats, 48 percent among independents, and 79 percent among Republicans.” I’m sometimes tempted to tell Jacques that not all conservatives are bigots but all bigots are conservatives. The numbers above show otherwise. Close to 1/3 of Democrats are bigots.

    Another tidbit: “Poll: 40 Percent of Whites Have No Black Friends
    All cards are on the table, white people: that so-called “black friend” you all have isn’t actually real. According to a new poll from Reuters/Ipsos, 40 percent of white Americans don’t have non-white friends, while 25 percent of non-white Americans have no friends outside their racial demographic. Suprisingly—given legal segregation ended 60 years ago—schools are still extremely racially divided. According to 2009 data from a UCLA Civil Rights Project, the schools attended by 40 percent of black and Latino students are 90 percent black and Latino. While white students go to schools that are 77 percent white.”

    When Jacques & his compadres start going on about Obama’s birth certificate/college grades/law license keep in mind what’s really going on.

    • Dr A:

      An interesting response, to be sure. I ask you about the nature of government power (and its limits) and you respond with a couple of polls about racist opinions in America.

      For what it’s worth, there is a libertarianish blog out there that is asking questions (rather than leveling accusations) about racism in societies (amongst other things), and you were invited to be a part of it. Don’t worry about censorship, either. I, unlike some people we know, think censorship is detrimental to intellectual growth. Hell, I wouldn’t care if you called my mother a cow or a whore (much less myself a liar) if it meant making an important point. You would, however, have to make sure that you never, ever spelled ‘racist’ wrong again.

      On that note, I’ll just repeat myself:

      1) Can anybody give me a concrete definition of “terrorism”? I ask because it seems like some of you are still a bit foggy on the issue and how it pertains to state policy.

      2) The second one is directed solely at Dr A: chattel slavery and the ethnic cleansing campaigns of the 19th and 20th centuries were also legitimized by the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. In your eyes, did government decree make these policies just? If not, what did? If these policies were unjust, and the government still legitimized them, what does that tell you about the limits of government power?

      • More juvenile bitchiness from Brandon interfering with his mission.

        The Internet means that censorship has lost much of its meaning. What power of censorship resides in one blog when there are tens of thousands of blogs? The use of the word indicates a lack of historical consciousness.

        Myself, as master of this particular small and unimportant blog, I think that basic civility promotes the exchange of ideas. I don’t know, for example, what intellectual or moral good can come out of describing an opponent as a “gopher” for a third party. This sounds to my well -read ear (I know this is strange) like Stalinist tripe and manure. Why not: “Stinky running dog of capitalism”?

        It’s paradoxical because Brandon is not, I am certain of it, anything like a Stalinist. He is just using the wrong voice. The mismatch between form and content is jarring and therefore, distracting.

        Maybe, I am wrong and hurling gross insults contributes something of intellectual or of moral importance. It does not matter to the pursuit of truth whether I am wrong or not. Diversity – as between blogs – is a good in itself. If I am wrong and potty-mouthiness is a good thing , readers will desert this blog in favor of one where insults are stock in trade. Curiously, they are unlikely to find themselves on the blog ably directly by Brandon. Notes on Liberty is a good blog, a rich one in which direct insults appear to me to be rare. It’s as if Brandon knew well what misbehaving is and only indulged when he is away from home.

        And no, don’t call me a child molester either.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        @Brandon
        Alas I cannot promise that I will not spell racist incorrectly in the future. I can periodically apologize for errors of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. This constitutes my 2013 apology. Errors of logic and other forms of muddy thinking are Jacques domain, I’ll leave his apologies to him.

        I see you were not satisfied with my last response so I’ll try again. I believe that the chattel slavery and ethnic cleansing of our recent history say nothing about the limits of government power.

        I believe they say a lot about the nature of American society during that period of time. I believe they says something about the current nature of our society as well (hence the polling results).

        BTW I found an email from you in my spam folder, I’ll reply when I get back to Canada. Sorry for the delay.

      • @ Dr A:

        Excellent. I’ll be keeping my eye out!

        @ Dr J:

        I don’t think gopher (amongst other things) is really an insult, but I come from a crummy neighborhood in a tough town, so I’ll work on trying not to offend anybody’s delicate senses on this (this!) blog in the future. Consider me properly shamed.

      • “Gopher” is very nice, N.S. !

  37. Terry Amburgey says:

    “(CNN) — A preliminary autopsy shows that James DiMaggio, the man who kidnapped Hannah Anderson after killing her mother and brother, was shot at least five times, Valley County, Idaho, Coroner Nathan Hess said on Wednesday. An exact cause of death will not be formally determined until toxicology tests have been completed in six to eight weeks, he said.
    DiMaggio was killed by an FBI tactical agent during a confrontation in the Idaho wilderness on Sunday, authorities said.”

    A U.S. citizen killed on U.S. soil without due process. Dire warnings about constitutional crisis incoming from Jacques at any moment….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s