I did read it, I also read for unspecified reasons. I also read this which makes a good point.
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.
I wouldn't call it a good point but understand that it might seem compelling to some but, bottomline, none of that proves anything though, does it?
Why wouldn't I call it a "good point"? For fuck's sake, it says "Most attorneys who take political jobs..." So somehow being the President of the United States (or even being the first black 1st Lady) is just "taking a political job"?
What I'm talking about is this: It stands to reason that most lawyers who get political jobs keep their law licenses active because they know those jobs are usually temporary so they'll one day probably need to return to working as lawyers to make money, doesn't it?
So, c'mon now, do you seriously think either Barack or Michelle will EVER need to return to litigating court cases to make money? Who would be delusional enough to think that? -- When the Obama family wants to make some money after they're out of he White House, they'll likely just give speeches for which they'll be richly remunerated (and for a minimum of effort, too). They'll hardly be the first national politicians to go this route and you must be aware of that, I'm thinking.
Also, my non-critical thinking fellow getbigger, did you notice that your excerpt from the article says "Most states"? Didn't that make you think something might be up? Seems like kind of weasel-y language since we're clearly talking about the state of Illinois and only Illinois. So....
I looked that shit up and here's what I was able to find out in about 10 minutes:
- It turns out that the part from your excerpt about still needing to pay dues even when on inactive status DOES apply to Illinois; In Illinois, if you remain on "active" status, you will pay a higher annual registration fee ($342- for active vs $105- for inactive) but, of course, this is just pocket change for the Obama family. But...
- In Illinois, if you remain on "active" status, you ARE subject to MCLE requirements (Minimum Continuing Legal Education). Nowhere in the lengthy list of exceptions to this requirement does it indicate that a President or 1st Lady is allowed to avoid the requirement. And...
- In Illinois, if you remain on "active" status, you must maintain malpractice insurance. (Not sure how much this costs but I'll bet it's more than the registration fee difference between "active" and "inactive" status).
Read for yourself here:
http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/rules/art_vii/artvii.htm