Jay BHO long and profound study of the Constitution has lead him to find it to restrictive on Federal Government powers. Just because the man studies it and is a scholar does not mean he understands or agrees with its principles.

Look Card Check will bring about redistributive change

It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Obama is familiar with the constitution in the very same manner that a poacher is familiar with gutting a deer.

I'd still like to look at his transcripts. Screw the birth certificate - let's see his grades!

Not because the laws conflict with federal laws, but because they conflict with a proposed federal law

Jay, did you read the source article? If you had, you would know that the state laws are allegedly in violation of EXISTING federal law that allows an employer the option of recognizing a union when presented with enough union authorization cards. Employers don't have to, they can insist on a vote, but they have long had the option to skip that step and accept the union (why they would want to is a different issue).

Then there is the matter of right to work laws that several states have on their books. These were enacted through a clause in the Taft/Hartley Act. Card Check would effectively repeal those without the states voting on them. We all know how much the unions hate right to work

The Walmart issue you covered yesterday is a prime example about the ineffectiveness of unions. Even their needs. In the South we have "right to work" laws which basically opens up all business to non union as well as union contractors. Of course union contractors cannot complete with the non union contractor. Not even close. So, again, this is an end run, or attempted end run around our rights. Two more years. ww

Why would you expect the unions to accept secret ballots? They know first hand, up close and personal, how to perpetrate voter fraud. Their problem will be when the votes exceeds the total number of workers, it will be hard for claims of disenfranchisement of non-employees to gai much traction!

Employer rights vs employee rights ... seems like the amendments are not reducing WORKERS rights one bit ...

Will the dead be able to vote in these elections just like in Barry's campaign to enslave America?

Remember every November while juggy's around.

This isn't at all suprising; the lawsuits against the states to benefit the unions.

One thing Obama has been very good at is paying off his supporters. Not much else, but he is taking care of his base.

The campaign continues, leadership - not so much.

#1 "Jay BHO long and profound study of the Constitution has lead him to find it to restrictive on Federal Government powers."

I wonder what kind of response you would get if one asked something like,'but Mr President, with all due respect, that is exactly one of the important intents of the Constitution'.

If he would dismiss that statement one could further ask something like, 'but Mr President, with all due respect, when you took the oath of office vowing to protect and defend the Constitution, what did you understand that to mean?' I am sure as a constitutional scholar these questions would not be difficult for him to answer.

Has anyone ever come forward describing what one of his classes on constitutional law was like? Just curious.

"President Obama, we are told, is exceptionally intelligent."

No, Barry is a fucking socialist idiot. Barry's accomplishment has been to learn how to play the system to his benefit. American's first "Affirmative Action President".

DaveD,

He would explain it is a "living Document" that must adapt with the times. He saying it right there that the Waren court need to modify it for the purpose of Social Justice.

Rule of Law is just something to circumvent for Social Justice.
See New Black Panther Party, Arizona Law Suite , his reaction to Citizens United, etc

"professional Constitutional scholar"

Goddamnit, Obama is nothing of the kind. Nothing.

He was an adjunct professor who gave some lectures on the Constitution (in a move that was obviously a put-up job to buff his shockingly thin resume). That's it.

He was not a professor. "Adjunct professor," for those outside academia, is a courtesy title used in academia for guest speakers. It's kind of like "Kentucky colonel." It is bestowed on guests for several reasons:

1. It gives them a niche in the academic hierarchy. "Who is that guy?" "He's a guy who is dropping in to give a lecture." is replaced by "He's an adjunct professor." Neater and cleaner.

2. It's an ego stroke for academic wannabees who are in fact academic neverwillbees. I've seen neverwillbees gush with pleasure at being called "professor" by virtue of being adjuncts.

3. It's granted as a resume builder for those who need/want that.

Re items #2 and 3, note that adjuncts generally are not paid. Conferring a title is a cheap way of "paying" them for doing work that the real faculty otherwise might have to do.

Last, a "scholar" studies a subject and ...PUBLISHES ON IT. Obama hasn't published squat, literally nothing. He's no more a legal scholar than a guy who bags groceries.

Jay,

Good post.

I will offer one quibble though. Most adjunct instructors are indeed paid. Many teach at multiple universities/colleges and can earn an OK income. Most schools use adjunct for anywhere from 40% to 80% of the school's teaching load.

Just wanted to clarify that aspect.

"President Obama, we are told, is exceptionally intelligent."

He is not. He is of modest intellectual gifts, I would say. Look at his use of language off the teleprompter. His vocabulary ("corpse-man?" good grief), imagery, and use of analogy are all pedestrian at best, the linguistic equivalent of orthopedic shoes - and this from a lawyer, a profession that selects for verbal skills.

Look also at the level of abstraction on which he operates, again when speaking extemporaneously. (Reading the teleprompter doesn't count; he doesn't speak Elizabethan English either, but would if it were programmed into the teleprompter).

All in all, I'd adjudge his intellectual acumen to be roughly that of the average college student, no higher.

Joe, thanks for the clarification.

I haven't had a lot of experience with adjuncts, and out of politeness didn't ask the few I've known whether or not they were paid, but from them I'd gotten the distinct impression that they weren't paid.

So I stand corrected.

"President Obama, we are told, is exceptionally intelligent."

I keep waiting to see any actual evidence for this.

The only evidence that even pretends to be objective is that he graduated summa cum laude from Harvard Law. And that's it. Other than that, the only evidence for Obama's intelligence is other liberals telling us that Obama is intelligent.

I didn't much care for Bill Clinton, but the dude was a Rhodes Scholar, so I give him props for that; an actual accomplishment. But Obama? Not so much.

"Union thuggery" is an oxymoron.

But isn't "oxymoron" the wrong choice of word? Peaceful union would be an oxymorn

Not oxymoron but rather "redundant"

But ignorance is what the author insists on

Made a pdf file of this one. This nonsense still festers in the cavities of pseudo-journalism! That "Of course, the union is forbidden from intimidating or unduly influencing the workers while collecting those pledge cards. . . . "Union thuggery" is an oxymoron," is really emotionally juniour high and even less obvious. Seen it happen on BOTH sides of the fence in 6 states, four different countries on three continents. Wake up.

Huh?

Actually, the "union thuggery" was sarcastic. Note the tone of the previous sentences.

And Thom, you're welcome to keep pdfs of all my articles. I don't delete entries, and any time I make significant corrections, they're noted.

And don't call me a "pseudo-journalist." I'm a blogger. I make no claims to be any kind of a journalist.

J.

Jay Tea, we would never call you a journalist. There are some things that, once said, you just can't take back.

Since O is so intellectually superior, and so well versed in Constitutional Law - I guess we can conclude his violation of Law is deliberate?