Can someone finally vet him please?

[Thump553]

Not sure if fantolay is just trolling everyone, but I am just going to clear up what the President of a Law Review does. For the most part, law students will have a write on process to get into a law review where the previous members of the review along with designated faculty will choose the next generation of members. While on the review, some Law Reviews, and definitely not all, will require their members to write an article that could possibly be included in the Law Review as a student article. Many Reviews and Journals do not do this as they exclusively publish the works of legal scholars. Harvard Law Review is probably the most sought out venue for publishing by legal scholars so any space that they have is a major premium.

Secondly, the job of the student editors, including the President of the Law Review, is not to write articles. The job of the middle management editors is to review the scholarly articles that are submitted to be published in the Harvard Law Review and correct citations so they are compliant with Bluebook and various other editing standards. Additionally, the editors will cite check the validity of sources as legal scholars are better thought of as giant Wiki articles with hundreds to thousands of citations to sources. These citations must be checked for accuracy and for correctness of support to what is written in the article.

The Board on a Law Review is generally upper management of the Journal or Review. They check the editors' reviews of the scholarly articles and then review them a second time. They are also liasons between the Review and the people who submit their articles for publication. The President of the Law Review is pretty much the face of the Journal. They will deal directly with the legal scholars and the school's faculty to determine what articles should be published and the general management of the Journal.

Hopefully that clears things up a bit fantolay as to why Obama may not have any published articles. I was luckily (or unluckily depending on how you view writing scholarly articles) on a Journal that publishes student submissions and was chosen to be published. So, Riparian for President. I have been vetted.

Excellent explanation. One thing that you didn't make absolutely clear for the conspiracy buffs is that the article you write to get on the law review is rarely, if ever, published-it's basically an admission test. Frankly the vast majority of people that get on a law review do it for the prestige-unless you are an editor basically you do grunt work-checking citations, proof reading, and the like. BTW congrats on being published-I still haven't got beyond the letter to the editor stage myself.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

http://news.investors.com/article/621683/201208091834/obama-columbia-years-remain-secret.htm

Not a single word contributed to Harvard Law Review? But he was president?

He waited 5 years but somehow got into HLS? One of the most prestigious law schools?

He can't release his record from Columbia? Come on?

Why is everyone trying so hard to vet Romney when Obama has never been properly vetted. Everyone has had a hands off approach to him for fear of being racist.

No matter how you spin it, Obama's story doesn't add up.

False equivalence.

Obama is not running based on his time at the Harvard Law Review.

 

[Rainsford]

And another loonie returner demands something stupid. You guys crack me up more than the birthers, for at least they citing legal requirements in their compaints - even if they were wrong. You simply post demands and your reasoning is "cause everyone else is doing it", something your mom taught you long ago is a stupid line of reasoning.

I understand you think you've come up with (or got from someone else) a clever line, but asking for Obama to prove he's an American isn't what makes someone a "birther"...it's repeatedly asking him to prove he's an American while ignoring the numerous times it's already been proven that he is. If Romney releases his tax returns and people keep asking for them, THAT would be a similar situation... Until then, you're just trying WAY too hard with this.

Also, "returner" sounds pretty stupid.

 

[Fern]

LOL, You understand that these agencies didn't belong to Obama while he was being vetted during his candidacy when he wasn't president yet? Or am I missing something in the way I parsed your comments?

edit - It's my understanding that all persons applying for a federal job gets vetted (screened) in one way or another, with scrutiny getting more concentrated and in-depth the higher in position one applies for. Correct me if I'm wrong here please.

Heretofore, no one has ever been able to document this vetting process you claim.

I've tried with no success.

The only info I've found on any such process is at the F.E.C. site. They don't appear to do any fact checking at all. They merely require the candidates to submit a form claiming they meet the requirements and it appears to be based entirely on the 'honor system'.

Perhaps it escaped your notice, but over the past couple of years we've had several bills authored by Congress to create a vetting system. None passed. My point is if we already had a vetting system Congresspersons would not be submitting bills to create one. I.e., we don't currently have a vetting/verification process.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Anyone that doesn't see the difference between tax returns and academic records is totally delusional, partisan, or both. The public must have knowledge of a candidate's current potential conflicts of interest/bias (and don't give me any hooey about Romney's so-called blind trust-he actively gives instructions to his so-called trustees).

I agree with ensuring politicians don't have a conflict of interest. I they should release their tax returns. However, past tax returns are of no use, it is their current tax returns while in office we need to see. We've already seen Romney's past two years' tax returns. That is sufficient for this purpose.

Fern

 

[Aegeon]

I agree with ensuring politicians don't have a conflict of interest. I they should release their tax returns. However, past tax returns are of no use, it is their current tax returns while in office we need to see. We've already seen Romney's past two years' tax returns. That is sufficient for this purpose.

Fern

To people who look at it logically and think things through sufficiently, the last two years returns are pretty worthless at this point.

Especially given how early the primaries are now, just about anyone running is going to have a good idea they are running for President by the time they would be submitting their tax return from two years ago and could specifically carefully manage them to look good. (I.E. you might actually avoid taking some tax breaks you would have otherwise taken purely for the sake of public appearances and perceptions.) All it really proves is you're not dumb enough to actually cheat on your tax returns at the exact same time you're running for President.

George Romney actually specifically noted that anyone could specifically make a couple years look good when running for President, and you need to release more than that to really prove anything.

Edit: The specific quote was "One year could be a fluke perhaps done for show."

(The catch though is that with the primaries now starting in January and taxes due on April 15th, Romney and most other candidates would also know they were likely running for the prior year's return today, and obviously George Romney releasing 12 years suggests he didn't find two years sufficient either.)

The amazing thing in the case of Romney is since he has been effectively running for President since at least 2008, you would expect him to have carefully managed his tax returns since at least then to look good publicly. The fact he has not been willing to release at least this much makes on wonder if he simply was too arrogant and/or dumb to even do this.

The underlying reality is today you need more than two years worth to generally really get useful info about how someone goes about paying their taxes and other aspects of their financial dealings and conduct.

 

[TerryMathews]

LOL, You understand that these agencies didn't belong to Obama while he was being vetted during his candidacy when he wasn't president yet? Or am I missing something in the way I parsed your comments?

edit - It's my understanding that all persons applying for a federal job gets vetted (screened) in one way or another, with scrutiny getting more concentrated and in-depth the higher in position one applies for. Correct me if I'm wrong here please.

Let me answer your question with a hypothetical question of my own:

Would a federal agency, any federal agency, be able to keep the President-elect as chosen by the electoral college from assuming office.

If your answer is yes, please cite the amendment or cause of the Constitution that grants a subordinate agency that sort of authority.

For the record, presidents in the past have replaced the heads of most to all of the agencies you are referring to. Clinton, for example, is famous for replacing all of the US attorneys.

I don't think the election system works the way you think it does.

Also, to clarify my point, he's not supplying for Federal job. The campaign is not a job application, nor is the presidency in the employ of the federal government.

 

[Aegeon]

For those curious about the actual facts by the way, we have allot of info about Obama's time as editor of the Harvard Law Review, including an La Times article originally published originally on March 19th 1990.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/09/barack-obama-ha.html

 

[cybrsage]

The amazing thing in the case of Romney is since he has been effectively running for President since at least 2008, you would expect him to have carefully managed his tax returns since at least then to look good publicly. The fact he has not been willing to release at least this much makes on wonder if he simply was too arrogant and/or dumb to even do this.

The underlying reality is today you need more than two years worth to generally really get useful info about how someone goes about paying their taxes and other aspects of their financial dealings and conduct.

What do you think you will find in his tax returns you do not already know?

 

[Aegeon]

What do you think you will find in his tax returns you do not already know?

I addressed this in other posts. To cover a couple of the points again, especially since he has not released them already, I suspect they would confirm he paid an exceptionally low rate in taxes most years, probably with some really creative tax deductions and tax sheltering techniques. I also suspect they might show he did something technically legal, but the American public might find quite ethically dubious to get that kind of money in a Roth IRA (potentially around 100 million dollars) where contributions are limited to 5,000$ per year under most circumstances. (And actually less in the past.)

The key is we have to mostly speculate based on Romney's behavior in not releasing them, we don't have this information for sure or what else might be there until he actually releases the info.

 

[Conscript]

Clearly the Obama fans have way more time to dedicate to forum trolling while Romney backers are busy at work paying for their welfare. It's just a theory at this time.

 

[feralkid]

http://news.investors.com/article/621683/201208091834/obama-columbia-years-remain-secret.htm

Not a single word contributed to Harvard Law Review? But he was president?

He waited 5 years but somehow got into HLS? One of the most prestigious law schools?

He can't release his record from Columbia? Come on?

Why is everyone trying so hard to vet Romney when Obama has never been properly vetted. Everyone has had a hands off approach to him for fear of being racist.

No matter how you spin it, Obama's story doesn't add up.

 

[cybrsage]

I addressed this in other posts. To cover a couple of the points again, especially since he has not released them already, I suspect they would confirm he paid an exceptionally low rate in taxes most years, probably with some really creative tax deductions and tax sheltering techniques.

Since we all know he is following the law, we already know this. You do not need to see his taxes to know he is following tax law...unless you think you understand it better than the IRS.

I also suspect they might show he did something technically legal, but the American public might find quite ethically dubious to get that kind of money in a Roth IRA (potentially around 100 million dollars) where contributions are limited to 5,000$ per year under most circumstances. (And actually less in the past.)

So you want to crucify him for NOT breaking the law, but need to see his tax return to before you grab the cross and the nails. Ummm...that is not a good reason.

The key is we have to mostly speculate based on Romney's behavior in not releasing them, we don't have this information for sure or what else might be there until he actually releases the info.

Which is how conspriacies work, and why loonie people are so often fully vested in them. You (generic you) do not know so you invent wild things as to what he is doing.

 

[Aegeon]

Since we all know he is following the law, we already know this. You do not need to see his taxes to know he is following tax law...unless you think you understand it better than the IRS.

So you want to crucify him for NOT breaking the law, but need to see his tax return to before you grab the cross and the nails. Ummm...that is not a good reason.

This is not that hard.

You may feel otherwise, but merely sliding by the IRS with them deciding your action at the time was technically legal with regards to taxes may (and definitely is for some) still be an issue for many members of the American public, at least in terms of certain actions. Obviously we can't say for sure what is the specific issue or issues, but its hard to come up with a reasonable explanation for Romney's behavior and choosing to leave this as an issue when it could be easily effectively addressed if there is nothing there.

Which is how conspriacies work, and why loonie people are so often fully vested in them. You (generic you) do not know so you invent wild things as to what he is doing.

We're talking about Romney strongly going against the recent standard on this issue and also how his father acted which clearly leads to massive questions from reasonable people. Its also not a new issue and was first clearly brought up in the Republican Primary with Romney sticking with releasing just 2 years. Even respected conservatives such as George Will have concluded that there must be damaging information in those prior years of tax returns. (Will arguably left it open that Romney might release them by basically next week and it wouldn't show that much, but if this doesn't happen he and other Republicans in many instances have made their views pretty clear.)

As noted, even if there was nothing there many of us would take issue with how Romney was pointless secretive and lacked transparency for the hell of it on this point. As noted, there is also a real danger of Romney really setting a lower tax return standard than has been pretty much otherwise the case recently, especially given how January primaries mean that the campaign cycle and the decision to run occurs earlier making it easier to manage to merely make those last two years of returns look good for the public.

 

[feralkid]

Since we all know he is following the law, we already know this. You do not need to see his taxes to know he is following tax law...unless you think you understand it better than the IRS.



So you want to crucify him for NOT breaking the law, but need to see his tax return to before you grab the cross and the nails. Ummm...that is not a good reason.



Which is how conspriacies work, and why loonie people are so often fully vested in them. You (generic you) do not know so you invent wild things as to what he is doing.

A. You do not understand what the word "conspiracy" means.

B. Santorum lost; hit the road!

 

[Riparian]

Excellent explanation. One thing that you didn't make absolutely clear for the conspiracy buffs is that the article you write to get on the law review is rarely, if ever, published-it's basically an admission test. Frankly the vast majority of people that get on a law review do it for the prestige-unless you are an editor basically you do grunt work-checking citations, proof reading, and the like. BTW congrats on being published-I still haven't got beyond the letter to the editor stage myself.

My fault, it was not my intention to leave that portion vague. Like you said, it's nothing more than a screener to get onto the journal itself. I don't believe I've seen a write-on paper ever get published since they are generally based upon a pre-chosen topic, agreed upon by all of the board members of the various journals as a test of a law student's ability to cite correctly.

Honestly, I was middle management on my Law Review as an Articles Editor but it was one of the most horrible experiences I have ever had. As middle management, you have no power to deal with any of the authors even when they make blatantly ridiculous assumptions off of their citations and you don't really have any power over the editors below you who generally put out lackluster jobs since they hate being on the journal just as much. In the end, it's exactly like you said. It's a pure prestige position to be the President or Chief Editor of a school journal and particularly prestigious to be the President of Harvard Law Review. You're pretty much top dog of the school.

Don't feel bad about publication in these journals either. I'm not entirely sure if people even really read the articles until they need some support for their own articles. There has only been a few times where I have been impressed by a student being published. One of which was when the previous Editor in Chief of my Journal was published and his publication was cited to by the Supreme Court in an FDA case. Regardless, if it's your intent to get published, I wish you the best of luck.