I looked up that case note and I can’t find anything that authenticates it as his own work. The only claim I found is that, in 2008, some Politico writers claim to have received a letter from Harvard Law Review stating that it was his work. The letter further stated that it was policy to maintain internal records of authorship of the unsigned items published. Does anyone know if there was any other proof or if that Harvard Law Review letter was ever published?
I can see where Harvard would have a vested interest in covering up the embarrassment of being so far in the tank over white guilt and multiculturalism that they would be willing to falsify his authorship. Otherwise, his appointment as President of the Harvard Law Review is not supported by a shred of scholarship or any other measurable means of indicating why 0 got that ultimate plum appointment. In other words, a sham through and through. Kind of like everything else about this jerk in the WH.
You wouldn't find anything in the Law Review itself; case notes never acknowledge authorship because they don't contain any original thought or analysis. It's just somebody announcing an 'important' decision and presenting the court's opinion in his or her own words.
It's perhaps more embarrassing that Obama wrote a case note and only a case note that it would be to say he wrote nothing at all. Both scenarios suggest he was lazy and wouldn't put in the time, but the case note suggests that he didn't have the analytical skills to write an article requiring critical legal thought and originality.
It's as if he was president of some academic graduate student physics honorary at MIT and, when all of the other members presented original and complex experiments as demonstrations, Obama showed up with a baking soda and vinegar volcano.
And, no, I've never seen a copy of the letter from Harvard Law Review.