"With Obama there are even signs of a strict constructionist.
As a professor (actually he was listed on the faculty of the University of Chicago as a “lecturer”) his students were surprised and dismayed he did not see a constitutional basis for such things as gay marriage.
I agree. The constitution says nothing about marriage. And it would be surprising if it did. The drafters considered marriage to be a private contractual arrangement and religious institution. To the extent there was any governmental involvement, it was at the local or state level. The federal government has no authority to tell the states what to do with marriage. Likewise, they have no right to discriminate or confer benefits based upon marital status—and that seems to be Obama's view.
As much as enthusiastic law students, and leftists (and recently, social conservatives), want to think otherwise, it is not, and never was, the function of the federal constitution to cover every aspect of life, or right every perceived wrong and injustice. In fact the most ignored portion of the document is the Tenth Amendment which provides that anything which is not specifically addressed is reserved to the states or the people.
For example, the idea that the founders wished the federal government to regulate abortion is absurd. Abortion existed at the time of the drafting of the constitution. They knew it was a crime under common law and the statutes of the colonies. And it never occurred to any of them that it might be the federal government's business."
Cool Ken. We'll be getting a one worlder that believes abortion is a state thing.
It might be different if you and he believed in upholdig the whole constitution and not just bits and pieces of it when campaigning. Obama is a an anti american Ken. He's a globalist puppet every bit as much as Hillary Clinton
John McCain George Bush and the rest of those posing as "our leaders" today. Might as well say it now I reckon. If you aren't against the NWO you're with it. Doesn't matter if Obama believes abortion is a state thing or not when his master's policy is global population control.
Our constitution means nothing. It's the Earth Charter and biodiversity that's being enforced by "our leaders"
these days and that my very good friends is above and beyond our own federal and state laws only because we put up with it.
The revolution of the awakening mind is working just fine billwald, matter of fact it's growing by leaps and bounds...just not here amongst these folks.
All due respect Ken, I think this is a reach of gargantuan proportions - Inspector Gadget couldn't reach this far :)
The opinion from this self described...
..is just that. But not really. She talks out of both sides of her mouth.
She says:
Despite the fact that she has a distrust for business, their lawyers, a confused timeline, and her poor spelling/grammar, she finds solace in the fact that Obama perhaps taught constitutional law? So what? There are theology professors who believe Christ was a fake, the Bible complete and utter myth. There are history professors who have taught that the Holocaust never happened and that we bombed ourselves at Pearl Harbor.
She ascertains Obama's alleged constructionism by positing:
Oh really? So he was a student in Tribe's class and his name was signed to an article, so they are one and the same
on all opinions? Mind boggling at how illogical this is.
Yet that's not the best of it. She changes her tune. Read the following from her same blog. Responding to Obama's support for reauth of the Patriot Act (Strict Constructionist, eh?), she writes:
and further...
Perhaps her most salient comment about the obsession with Obama is this:
Obama's constitutional mindset is no more, no less, than the typical Washington mindset: "If I agree with the Constitution, change the culture. If I agree with the culture, change the Constitution."
Which leads me to this:
I can't believe I'm about to say this...I agree with Poncho....he rightly said:
This is the fatal flaw of the Democrats, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the GOP.
So, Ken, I know you are a foreign policy student, and I know Obama has some good arguments there. But I'd caution you: a broken clock is right twice every day :)
Nothing to be confused about.
I supported and voted for Ron Paul in the primary.
Now, one of three people will be our next president - Obama, Clinton, or McCain.
Of these three I hope that it will be Obama.
Don't think that for one minute that Obama is going to remove troops from Iraq. It will not happen. I know what he says but saying and doing are two seperate things. If anything he will escalate it.
And some people around here will never forgive you for it :laugh: (Everytime you mention it, it reminds me that I need to get hold of it again).
I believe Obama would draw down troops in Iraq/Afghanistan. But hasn't he favored intervention in Darfur? Thrown out the possibility of troops in Pakistan? I don't have a copy of that speech close by.
As for stating that the best we can hope for is a broken clock, I don't know. Obviously, the current crop of candidates is not a bumper crop of -gravitas, but surely we can hope for more than Clinton/Obama's Nanny state, big brother approach, and McCain/Huckabee/Paul's pseudocon approach.
I think it is bombing al Qaeda in Pakistan - the folks who attacked these United States on 9/11/2001, the folks that President Bush foolishly took his eye off of to go after Saddam Hussein - a man who had nothing to do with the attack on these United States on 9/11/2001.