the reason this is not being investigated is because it is STUPID. No I do not like Warren or her false claims of being aborigine but clearly she had a law license somewhere. The deal with the various state bars requiring licenses is similar to requiring different driver’s licenses state to state—oh no, you ain’t driving in Mass with a New Jersey license, you need a Mass license—dumb, stupid, that is why lawyers aren’t really that concerned, only the ones that think like New York cab drivers-—eh, you ain’t got a cab driving medallion, you ain’t driving a cab.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with your characterization of the licensing practice as pure BS (for concealed carry and law licenses) but it is the law.
The reason why this is so important is because the Bar of a State does not have jurisdiction over a non-member like they do over a member. When a lawyer has a law license in another State and that person wants to talk to a judge in a State in which they are not licensed, they must have a Lawyer in their State vouch for them and, in fact, be responsibile for them. Its called pro hoc viche:
(http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/pro-hac-vice.html).
Further, the Massachussetts Legislature has codified its rule on this:
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleI/Chapter221/Section46a
No. There is a reason why you need a license from the state you are practicing in. Each of the states has their own laws. Thus, the Attorney needs to prove competent knowledge of the laws specific to the state they are practicing in via passing that state’s bar exam.
There are two parts to passing a states bar exam. One part is general law that covers the legal concepts common to all states. The second part is an exam devoted to the specific state an Attorney wishes to practice in.
I guess you support central authority over state sovreignty.