« This is why Michael Savage is the most hated conservative in America. | Main | The Knuckleheads of the Day award »

Con Job

One of the more common criticisms of Barack Obama as a presidential candidate is his very, very thin resume'. The guy just hasn't done very much that gives us a solid indicator of what he believes, what he thinks, how he thinks, how he performs.

One of the points on that resume' is his tenure as a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School, where he taught for twelve years. Very little has come out about Obama as teacher, but I have to say that based on his statements in the last year, I have some serious doubts about his qualifications to teach that subject.

When the Heller case challenging the Washington, DC absolute gun ban was wending its way to the Supreme Court, Senator Obama said that he supported the measure. He said, on numerous occasions, that he thought that the 2nd Amendment did not prevent the District of Columbia from preventing individuals from owning handguns.

I happen to have disagreed with that stance, but it's an arguable one. I will cheerfully debate the merits of that position, but I will never say that the 2nd Amendment is absolutely cut and dried. Indeed, I've argued that it is probably the worst-crafted portion of the entire Constitution the Founding Fathers approved, with an annoying ambiguity that should have been caught and clarified before final approval.

Anyway, the Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, recognized my sagacity and agreed with me, and struck down the DC ban. How did former professor of Constitutional Law Obama handle that development?

He supported the Court's ruling.

Apparently ex-Professor Obama missed the part of American Constitutional history when people whose positoin was shot down by the Supreme Court reacted by saying they disagreed with the Court's ruling. One superb example is Roe V. Wade, where over 30 years after the ruling, people STILL say the Court got it wrong. (And I've yet to find anyone who will say, in all sincerity, that the ruling in and of itself is well-crafted and on solid Constitutional footing.)

Or, alternately, one can admit that one was wrong and that the Court got it right. There's little shame in saying that the Court's reasoning was sound, and helped you see the issue in a new light.

But ex-Professor Obama didn't do either. He says he still supports the District's policy, but he also supports the Court's ruling. So we have the case of a man who taught Constitutional Law for a dozen years, shaping lord knows how many future lawyers and judges, that he had no problems supporting an unconstitutional policy -- and still supports it today, along with the ruling that declared it unconstitutional.

On a slightly less serious (but still troubling) front, last week Senator Obama showed his ignorance of another aspect of the Constitution -- more specifically, the 22nd Amendment.

During his grand tour of the world, Senator Obama said that it was important that he get to know certain world leaders, because he may have to deal with them "for the next eight to ten years."

Under the terms of that Amendment, Senator Obama simply can not be president for "the next eight to ten years." In most cases, a president is limited to eight years in office. In the freakest of freak circumstances, a president can serve for ten years less one day (a sitting vice president assumes the presidency after the president serves two years and one day of a term, then wins election twice on their own), but Senator Obama isn't running for vice president, so those circumstances don't apply.

And even if he was talking about continuing to hold some sort of power after he leaves office after two terms, that flies in the face of history and tradition. Only two presidents have held major federal office after leaving the White House, and both of them took some time off between the two jobs. John Quincy Adams lost the presidency in 1828, and was elected to Congress in 1830, while William Houward Taft spent eight years out of office before being confirmed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

I suppose that Senator Obama could be thinking of more recent examples of ex-presidents gettting involved in politics and international diplomacy, but even Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton took a few years off, out of the limelight, before violating the long-standing tradition of ex-presidents minding their own business and staying out of sight.

Try as I might, I can't see any way of interpreting Obama's "eight to ten years" remark as anything but either sheer ignorance, utter cluelessness, or the sign of a man who lets his mouth run ahead of his brain -- and doesn't care about what he says, because he's used to those who report his words acting as the "interpreter" of what he really meant.

However you spin it, though, it doesn't strike me as the sign of a good teacher of Constitutional Law.

Or, for that matter, someone who wants to take an oath that requires them to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Because it's kinda helpful to know what the Constitution actually says and means if you're going to do that kind of stuff.

(Numerous typos corrected)


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/30625.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Con Job:

» The Thunder Run linked with Web Reconnaissance for 07/22/2008

Comments (19)

"Very, very thing reseume" ... (Below threshold)
kevino:

"Very, very thing reseume" ?

I'll add:"...gun b... (Below threshold)

I'll add:

"...gun ban was wanding its way to the Supreme Court..."?

You drinking, son?

Hussein O taught nothing. H... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Hussein O taught nothing. He was on the government dole for 12 years (actually his entire life) and that's the truth of it. Anyone found any of his great writings as a law professor? Like his hope and change, he hopes you don't change when you see him in the light. I thought he was just a better educated con man than Je$$ie and $harpton, now you can drop the educated, he's on the same level as the world's expert con's.

There are at least seven mo... (Below threshold)

There are at least seven more. Was this an attempt to parallel Obama's gaffe generating capabilities, or is someone's spellcheck busted?

Sorry, just feel like breaking balls today, I guess.

I keep reading, over and ov... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

I keep reading, over and over, Obama's answer to the question of how he could reconcile his two positions on the DC ban.

Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.

"two conflicting traditions" It's clear what he says the first tradition is; "hand gun ownership and gun ownership generally". But I'll be damned if I can figure out what the second tradition is. Unless he sees "violence in the streets" as a tradition.

Then he goes off into left field (pun intended) about seeing nothing wrong with a community wanting to take illegal guns off the streets.

That is not what the DC gun ban did. The ban was not designed to take illegal hand guns off the streets nor to tighten loopholes in acquiring hand guns. There were no loopholes. Law abiding citizens could not own a hand gun under any circumstances. Is he that dumb, or does he think others are that dumb?

But he should be real pleased now. Within two weeks of the SC ruling DC immediately passed new restrictive laws to register guns already owned. (They did give a 120 day amnesty period to give people the opportunity to get legal) The laws are so restrictive that even Heller's application for a license for his gun was rejected because it was "bottom loading" and that was construed as a "machine gun".

Well, to be truthful, there... (Below threshold)
Weegie:

Well, to be truthful, there's some ambiguity about how long a presidential term lasts in the other 7 of the 57 states Obama is running for president in.

"Is he that dumb, or doe... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Is he that dumb, or does he think others are that dumb?"

He doesn't "think", he KNOWS his supports are. Well, actually "dumb" is not quite right- "willfully ignorant" or "blissfully information-retarded" would be better terms.

Maybe by "8 to 10 years" he... (Below threshold)
john1v6:

Maybe by "8 to 10 years" he meant how long he'd be dealing with those leaders while he's on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, during President McCain's two terms and the first half of President Palin's first term

Has anyone ever admitted to... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

Has anyone ever admitted to being a STUDENT of Obama ? I have never seen a single article from any former students of his talking about his teaching style or methods.

If he wins or loses, he'll ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

If he wins or loses, he'll be dealing with foreign leaders for 8-10, or maybe more years.

Hardly merits a comment about "sheer ignorance, utter cluelessness, or the sign of a man who lets his mouth run ahead of his brain" and attacks on the media. Unless you let your mouth run ahead of your brain which is all too common here. From the typos, it looks like you have been drinking.

It should also be noted that Wizbang has written more about Obama saying "57 states" and "8-10" years than Malkiki's endorsement of his withdrawl plan.

That's prolly 'cause Wizban... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

That's prolly 'cause Wizbang authors don't write posts about things that exist only in the minds of Marxists JP2.

Maliki endorses Obama's pla... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Maliki endorses Obama's plan--in real life--but that exists only in the minds of Marxists? Have you got unicorns in your reality, P. Bunyan? 'Cause I might like to relocate to wherever that is if you do.

Maliki can endorse it now, ... (Below threshold)
Weegie:

Maliki can endorse it now, but only because President Bush ignored Obama's previous position of immediate (catastrophic) withdrawl.

Perhaps that means that it is best to do the opposite of what Obama believes, because he has such a poor track record of being right?

It should also be ... (Below threshold)
It should also be noted that Wizbang has written more about Obama saying "57 states" and "8-10" years than Malkiki's endorsement of his withdrawl plan.

That's because on rare occasions, a blind squirrel finds a nut. That's not news.

I will cheerfully... (Below threshold)
LC John Wardle:
I will cheerfully debate the merits of that position, but I will never say that the 2nd Amendment is absolutely cut and dried. Indeed, I've argued that it is probably the worst-crafted portion of the entire Constitution the Founding Fathers approved, with an annoying ambiguity that should have been caught and clarified before final approval.

And just what part of.....

....... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

is annoyingly ambiguous?

Hyper,One of these... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Hyper,

One of these days you might just realize that the press is in the tank for your messiah and they don't report the "news" but merely spin propaganda. The rest of the story goes something like this:

But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

In other words the story you and JP2 were fooled by was a typical Marxist propaganda piece designed to fool simple minded persons. Not unlike anything else in the "mainstream" press.

I don't disput that the Iraqi's want an eventual U.S. withdrawal from combat (and I defy you to name one person who does not want that), but Obama's "plan" has at it's core one objective and that objective is to ensure Americas defeat in Iraq. Have you ever heard Obama say "win" with regard to Iraq? Nope. Obama wants America to be defeated. He fools simple minded people by saying "end" instead of "loose" but when Obama says "end" he means "loose".

Maliki does not want America to be defeated and thus does not support your messiah's plan.

Sorry, but them's the facts jack.

LC, it's that stupid first ... (Below threshold)

LC, it's that stupid first clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."

Grammatically, it can go either as a dependent clause or an exhortatory clause. I happen to agree with you, that it -- like every other amendment that refers to "the people" -- refers to an individual right, but it is just ambiguous enough to give the gun-grabbers a tiny bit of ground to stand on.

J.

This is a lame article. Sh... (Below threshold)
Area 52:

This is a lame article. Should I hold the author accountable for his lack of syntactical prowess? McCain has said and done worse things. He went in front of the NAACP and said Martin Luther KIng, Jr. was a great man but his state of Arizona was the last to observe his birthday. Obama makes plenty of mistakes, as most humans do but McCain is not infallible. Check out the Green Party when you get the chance..........

Area,The US Senators... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Area,
The US Senators of any state have no, I repeat no control over what ther states they represent do. If he were, say, the governor of Arizona, you'd have a point. It would be better to question West Virginia's comitment to equality based on their electing Robert Byrd again and again... but that would also be unfair. But it would at least be logical.
And the green party? Because the democratic party just isn't far enough to the left?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy