To: i-node who wrote (716653 ) 5/21/2013 11:10:37 AM From: tejek Respond to of 1584052 He was a corp attorney. Do you understand there is a difference between a constitutional jurist and corp attorney? Every lawyer takes a Con Law course but only certain lawyers specialize in it. Nonsense. A corporate attorney who specializes with media organizations will have at least as much knowledge of the law surrounding media organizations as any other kind of attorney. But we are not talking about the media.........we're talking about the Constitution.Obama was a Con Law professor............now he's the one you should be asking. Oh wait, he's black.........never mind. There is ZERO evidence to support the claim Obama was a "Constitutional Law Professor". IN fact, he is the person who started that rumor. His title was "Senior Lecturer", which is a far cry from a constitutional law professor. That would be Alan Dershowitz or someone of that stature. In fact, the University of Chicago made the statement that he was a "professor" ONLY because it was looking for the benefits from his presidency (you remember, he was going to seize the Olympics and drag them to Chicago???) There is, in fact, no evidence to suggest Barack Obama has had one BIT of training on constitutional law beyond that of the run-of-the-mill attorney. And certainly, after four+ years in office, anyone who is remotely familiar with the Constitution recognizes that Obama hasn't a fucking clue about the intricate issues of constitutional law. Not a clue. Sorry o wise one but wrong again:It is becoming increasingly common for major research universities to hire full-time lecturers, whose responsibilities are primarily undergraduate education, especially for introductory/survey courses that involve large groups of students. These tend to be the courses that tenure-track faculty do not prefer to teach, and are unnecessarily costly for them to do so (at their comparatively higher salary rates). When a lecturer is part-time, there is little practical distinction from an adjunct professor , since neither has the prestige of being on the tenure-track. For full-time lecturers, many institutions now incorporate the role quite formally with performance reviews, promotional tracks, administrative service responsibilities, and many faculty privileges (e.g. voting, use of resources, etc.)[ citation needed ]. One emerging alternative to the use of full-time lecturers at research-heavy institutions is to create a parallel professorship track that's focused on teaching, which may or may not offer tenure, with a title series such as teaching professor. This would be analogous to how some universities have research-only faculty tracks with title series such as research professor/scientist/scholar.[ citation needed ] It should also be noted, however, that the title is sometimes, paradoxically, used in just the opposite sense: in some institutions, a lecturer especially "distinguished lecturer" may also refer to a position similar to emeritus professor. Also, in some schools it's a temporary post for visiting academics of considerable prominence—e.g. a famous writer may serve for a term or a year, for instance. When confusion arose about Barack Obama 's status on the law faculty at the University of Chicago , the institution stated that although his title was "senior lecturer," that school actually uses that title for notable people such as federal judges and politicians who are deemed of high prestige but simply lack sufficient time to commit to a traditional tenure-track position. [9] en.wikipedia.org As usual, your racist interjection is a side show. Uh.......my racist interjection? That's all Rs have done since Obama starting running for president.........interject race into the discussion.