Skip to comments.Did Obama really teach Constitutional Law?
Posted on 04/05/2012 11:47:27 AM PDT by reaganaut1
As reported in a Wall Street Journal column:
He spoke slowly, with long pauses, giving the sense that he was speaking with great thought and precision: "Well, first of all, let me be very specific. Um [pause], we have not seen a court overturn [pause] a [pause] law that was passed [pause] by Congress on [pause] a [pause] economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned [pause] at least since Lochner, right? So we're going back to the '30s, pre-New Deal."
Lochner v. New York is one of the most important cases in Constitutional Law. How could someone who was supposed to be a professor of Constitutional Law at a top-14 law school not know that Lochner v. New York was about the Supreme Court overturning a New York STATE statute and not a federal statute? And then he was thirty years off because Lochner was decided in 1905.
I used to think Obama earned his magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, but now I have to wonder.
Once again, Obama should have said what I wrote a few days ago:
The Supreme Court hasnt found a major piece of economic legislation unconstitutional for violating the enumerated powers of Congress since the 1930s.
My statement is true, what Obama keeps saying shows a lack of understanding of Constitutional Law.
in his dreams ?
Zero said he wanted to be very specific (and he spoke slowly!) and still Carney said we misunderstood him. How stupid does the zero administration think the American people are?
Are we certain that the individual now claiming to be Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is the same individual who attended Harvard Law School?
It was pointed out to me yesterday, Obama was a lecturer, not a teacher/professor.
Abner Mikva taught Con Law while Obama was a fellow at U of Chicago Law School. Obama taught an elective course, Race and the Law.
Very...and many are or we wouldn't have who is seated in the highest office of the land if there wasn't truth to that.
They all wanted that "tingle up their leg"...so easy to ask how does that feel now!...Trouble is they can't discern the difference.
Obama is an ultra-partisan boob.
He was given a lecturer position on Con Law at University of Chicago by his cronies.
He is not a published Con Law professor.
The only published documents available for Obama are his ghost-written books.
Barry never did anything that’s documented. This guy, for all intents and purposes is a community organizer of half witted minorities in Chicago! No offense to half witted minorities, but just D@mn!
Folks, this guy wouldn’t have made it anywhere except for his skin color!
On second thought, screw the flames!
Yes, and not a regular lecturer either. The job was created specifically for him; there was no lecturer occupying the job before him, and none after.
I think it’s safe to assume that Bill Ayers et al pulled some strings to get him the gig simply to puff up his resume before he ran for office.
Obama is not found of the Constition and particularly the Bill of Rights and any powers reserved for the people or the states.
He views our rights as “negative rights” which tells the government precisely what it cannot do.
He wants a set of “positive rights” declared which would tell us all the neat things the Federal government can and should od for the rest of us “masses.”
Obama is a walking., talking marxist ideolog at heart...a command economy and society waiting to happen...and all his talk about the Constitution is tainted and painted with that hue.
Obama in his own words about the Constitution to NPR in 2001
The Man Who Despises America
There’s been great confusion on that question. Actually, it was Soviet Constitutional Law Comrade Obama taught, not a course about the U.S. Constitution.
There’s a nice write up about this “Perfessor” thing at factcheck.org. Obozo lectured on the “Equal Protection” clause in the 14th Amendment...and that was about it. He used it solely as a race baiting teachable moment...
Obama is not now, and never was a law professor. There is no documented proof that he ever graduated from anything even high school, much less that he was ever a professor.
He is a fraud and a liar. The Leftists at Harvard had him hanging around as a token. And I guess it has been said that he guest lectured a couple of times. As always with everything about Obama, this is another undocumented and unproven claim.
I’m surprised they resurrected this law professor nonsense. It has be shown to be a completely undocumented claim. And frankly, I’m tired of hearing it. It is insulting to all of us.
Why didn’t they just make him an astronaut, or a race car driver? He never did that either. What’s the difference.
“He is not a published Con Law professor.
The only published documents available for Obama are his ghost-written books.”
No one has seen ANY of his thesis papers if he ever did one, nor transcripts.
I took mostly engineering, science, math and economics in College. Most of these are no-nonsense knowledge application stuff.
But I did have some electives too. I had to take management classes and a speech class. I have always been an articulate and confident speaker in public. I figured it would be a fun class for me, provide some practice and earn a pretty easy A. That is until I received my grade on the first speech. This was my introduction to the liberal arts side of things and professors that were ‘out of their’ minds on real world application of a collegiate education.
When it came time to give our first 5 minute speech to the class I was the third to go. I nailed it. The young woman that followed me was horribly nervous. She cried in front of class and couldn't even read from her notes. She didn't finish the 5 minute speech. Another guy read verbatim his entire speech from his notes. I recall saying a prayer of thanks to the Lord for some of the many talents he bestowed on me and prayed to help some others get through this class. It was painful until I learned of my grade and that of others. I received a D! The girl that couldn't finish received an A and the guy that read his entire speech received a B.
I had a meeting with the “tenured professor” to get some help on what the problem was as there was no explanation on my graded research and note cards (that I did not need to use but was required to turn in). She stated that she graded on the potential of the student and these first few grades didn't mean much. “You shouldn't be discussing grades between yourselves anyway.”
My point? Professors are WAY overrated with regards to their supposed “expertise”. I don't trust the expertise of academia for real world application any more than I trust the assembly instructions for a yo-yo made in China.
I'm not surprised that Obama doesn't really understand the Constitution or the founding documents and values of this nation.
One thing about these FRthreads, one sees a bunch of future Winstons needing a “correction” How many fingers, Winston?
Did Obama ever do much of ANYTHING? Whatever he pontificated about the Constitution while lecturing impressionable undergrads, had little to do with the virtues of the Constitution, but concentrated almost exclusively on the FLAWS.
Nuances and penumbrations to be found in various rulings were highly magnified, while the clear language of both the Constitution and the various Amendments was glossed over, or ignored entirely.
There are different ways to “teach” the Constitution. Obama was only looking for loopholes and internal contradictions, or what he hoped were contradictions.
Obama did NOT teach “ConLaw”.
He lectured on community activism during presentations labeled “ConLaw”.
If there were evidence to the contrary, we’d have seen it by now.
For those who haven't seen it, a description
An affluent New York couple find their lives touched, intruded upon, and compelled by a mysterious young black man claiming to be Sidney Poitier's son and a classmate of their son at Harvard. He is eventually revealed to be a highly persuasive con-man, who has charmed his way into many upper-crust homes along the Upper East Side with his wit and insider knowledge.
Notice how he says, “Hold on a second, I can’t hear myself.”
According to an article just posted on Drudge, Obama did teach Constitutional Law - semester 3, on the 14th Amendment. The article Drudge points to was written by a person who claims to have taken the course. His response to Obama’s slam at the Supreme Court was that Obama wasn’t against a group of unelected officials overturning laws in the case of Roe V. Wade and other cases he taught.
Gee Willikers! Do ya think? Did you just crawl out from under a rock?????????
Most people could not easily live with themselves, knowing they are just an empty suit, a puppet, a stage prop. But Obama's narcissism is such that this doesn't bother him at all. He feels he is worthy of great respect even though he is a fraud.
And how did Zero feel about nine unelected justices overturning all kinds of democratically passed segregation laws?
Never attribute to “malice”, what can more easily be explained by “incompetence”.
Our POTUS is the “Cliff Clavin” of politics. He just makes this stuff up as he goes along.
maybe in Cuba.
No we are not certain, mostly because the person now claiming to be Barack Hussein Obama has spent over $2 million so that we cannot find out
“...Why didnt they just make him an astronaut, or a race car driver? He never did that either. Whats the difference...”
Had that spazzmo tried either of those, he’d be resting with dead Ted.
Obama did not teach constitutional law. What Obama taught was constitutional activism. Obama honed his constitutional skills to discover loopholes around the Constitution's vision for America.
Senator Obama informed us that he felt the Constitution was a flawed document.
President Obama informed us that he will discover ways to bypass Congress.
Now President Obama is looking for loopholes to bypass the Supreme Court.
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson
Former Obama Law Student Speaks Out...
We are not sure he is an American.
We are not sure he speaks of his own volition.
We are not sure what name he will ‘use’ next year or the year after. (how many aka’s does he have? we will never know)
We are not ‘sure’ he ever went to any American college or graduated. (we DO know that he has NO transcripts)
We are not sure those girls (that he forgets their names) are actually his daughters or that the Michelle person is actually his wife.
We ARE sure he is a Muslim. I mean, come on already. Braak Hussein Obama is about the most Muslim name anyone could conjure up. It is just STUPID that we have to walk around in some Liberal fantasy-land pretending he is not Muslim.
I mean, how stupid are we. “Here is my friend Hymie Goldstein Imajew. Pssst, but don't ask him if he is Jewish. We are supposed to pretend we don't know.”
This is a shadow man with no documented past at all. No driver's license, some crazy SSN from who knows where. Why shouldn't he claim he was the Bronco Busting Rodeo Champion of Texas in 1979? Why not? So far he hasn't had to prove a single claim of his so called past.
Yeah, uhhhh, I graduated from Harvard, and Columbia, and Occidental, and Oxford, and I speak 4999 languages, and I invented gravity, and... Why not? Crazy world.
It might be called Constitutional Law now but I think it was closer to Community Organizing.
No, Obama earned his “magna cum laude” from Joe’s School of Bus Driving.
However, affirmative action stamped it as being from Harvard.
Yes I suspect Obama probably did slither out from under a rock and specifically the one in mecca.
“I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.” The Bastard in the White House
While it is appropriate for students to refer to all their instructors as “professor,” it is a lie for someone who isn’t to call himself one. Professor, of whatever rank, normally means having gone through a national search. The bastard was an affirmative action hire. His credentials, other than his skin color, fell short of the standard. I’m not second guessing his being hired as a fellow, or as a lecturer, for whatever purpose the hiring served. But, to claim to be a professor not having been a professor is an insult to those who actually are professors.
Second, the bastard did not have to publish, and did not publish, in his field, subject to peer review. He was 12 years at the U of C Law School and he doesn’t have one law review article. What does that tell you? Well, to be kind, it tells you he wasn’t a professor and never had an expectation of becoming one. I am sure the U of C Law School would have loved to shift him over to professor, partly because of the color of his skin, but also because he was a very popular instructor.
Third, the bastard did not teach Constitutional Law, which is normally reserved for the most honored member of the faculty in the area of constitutional law, which person was Abner Mikva, a liberal Democrat. Mikva had been on the DC Circuit Court for years an associate judge and then as Chief Judge. During his tenure on the DC Circuit Court, Mikva wrote many decisions and engaged many clerks who went on to distinguished careers. As an academic, Abner Mikva wrote many Law Review articles. Obama taught an elective course - race and the law and, certainly, there were constitutional issues in that course, but he is lying to claim to have taught constitutional law.
You have to ask yourself how dangerous it is for our country to have a lying bastard as President, in addition to being a racist, Marxist left-wing radical. He claimed he supports the Constitution and that Bush didn’t, yet it was him who berated the members of the Supreme Court while delivering the State of the Union address, who interjected himself twice in criminal cases based on the color of the skin of the persons involved, and publicly questions the authority of the Supreme Court to overturn an unconstitutional act of Congress. God help this country if he is re-elected.
I saw a Harvard Law grad last week say that Constitutional Law classes did not use the Constitution, but rather they only studied case Law.
Obama swore an oath before God and tens of millions of witnesses to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, but he violated that oath in the most blatant manner when he deliberately and with malicious aforethought made a "recess" appointment (Richard Cordray) when the Senate was not in recess. He violated his oath of office. I remember back to Nixon and Watergate. That was one of the bases for the articles of impeachment that were being drawn up before Nixon resigned.
Does anyone remember when Bill Clinton was fitted with hearing aids before a debate? I never saw him wear them again, but I saw many pictures of a bulge under GW’s coat.
Did this student produce a transcript showing the instructor and grade, or is it just a claim like ZERO’s.
Probably so, but not the one who wrote “his” exams.
“we have not seen a court overturn [pause] a [pause] law that was passed [pause] by Congress on [pause] a [pause] economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce”
Well, no, it’s not commerce. That’s why Obamacare is unconstitutional. Granted, neither was the subject of Wickard v. Filburn commerce. But that’s another argument.
“He views our rights as ‘negative rights’ which tells the government precisely what it cannot do.
He wants a set of ‘positive rights’ declared which would tell us all the neat things the Federal government can and should od for the rest of us ‘masses.’”
I don’t know why the quotation marks. That is proper terminology. A little scientistic, but it’s the right idea. I, for one, view negative rights positively but still call them “negative,” because they are.
In fact, he craves a command economy and his ideology is much more consistant with Mrxism than it is with Constitutional Republicanism.
Those ideals represent the anti-thesis of what this nation was founded upon and was supposed to be about...individual liberty, based on fundamental moral principle, with unalienable rights that are not subject to the whim of a ruler.
Obama wants very badly to shift from governance to rule.
The “student” was my contracts professor in law school. He had Obama as an instructor at UC and doesn’t think too highly of him.
“A law like that has not been overturned [pause] at least since Lochner, right? So we’re going back to the ‘30s, pre-New Deal.”
You know, I kinda sorta sympathize with Obama here. He’s thinking like a politician, which is only natural. Progressivism won the war that raged from the 1890s, through the infamous Lochner, to the laissez-faire Waterloo that was the latter New Deal court. Lochner is a punchline, nowadays, both in conservative and liberal circles. Old-time economic rights are long gone. The “switch in time that saved nine” sealed the New Deal’s practical political victory and progressivism’s philosophical victory over the Constitution as it used to be known. So what’s the court doing, threatening to stand in the way of inevitable universal heathcare? It’s so 70 years ago.
Ah, but Wickard v. Filburn only seemed to open the door to regulation of everything under the sun. Or, rather, it did open regulation of everything under the sun, but that still doesn’t mean there are no limits. Because some things aren’t under the sun, including what Obama wants to regulate. I’m not sure what Obamacare regulates, actually. Mere existence, apparently, or according to their SCOTUS arguments, eventual commerce. Whatever they think it is, it’s not something that actually exists. As wrong as is the Wickard decision, at least it was regulating something, if not interstate commerce.
Obamacare regulates the wind. It is so painfully obvious to people not using it as an means to the end of socialism that generations of Wickard precedent can’t obscure it. You cannot bring commerce into existence in order to regulate it. Not Wickard, nor anything following it, says you may.
It’s the legislation, not a possible SCOTUS decision, which is unprecedented. The administration overshot Wickard, thinking (or failing to consider) it’d be okay because progressivism’s victory was complete. It was only nearly so, not totally complete. A little, teeny, eensy bit of liberty remains, hopefully.
Though, again, I wanna sympathize with Obama on this one. We are used to lamenting the progressive betrayal. Who in his circle, think about it, ever criticized Wickard? Who in his circle bothers coming up with microscopic pockets of liberty that can’t be touched by the commerce clause? It would be as if to expect us to have studied the intricacies of what classes and/or subtle shades of skin color are allowed to benefit from land redistribution after liberation theology takes hold in sub-saharan Africa. It’s just not something we’re into.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.