Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Vetting: Obama Teaches Constitutional Law -- Part I
Breitbart ^ | 3/15/12 | Ben Shapiro

Posted on 03/15/2012 10:07:40 AM PDT by Nachum

Let’s take a trip via the wayback machine to the hallowed classrooms of the University of Chicago Law School. The year is 1996, and a young lecturer named Barack Obama is teaching constitutional law to a group of students. His first final exam question is about whether homosexuals can be barred from receiving state health care coverage for their infertility treatments.

The question deals with a hypothetical lesbian couple that wants to have a baby. Their state prevents health providers from providing infertility treatments for unwed couples; the couple’s state-provided healthcare therefore refuses them coverage for such procedures

Obama then presented an analysis of this question. That’s the way it works on law school constitutional law exams: you spot the issues, then offer an analysis of them. They never come down on one side or another. But they can give you important clues as to the way the student (or in this case, the lecturer) thinks.

Instead of wading through the legal thicket presented by any law school exam, let’s analyze Lecturer Obama’s main take. He makes the following points:

“The fundamental right at stake … goes well beyond issues of bodily integrity, but instead involves the broader principle that the government cannot be in the business of deciding who should bear children and who should not – at least without offering up some pretty compelling reasons for doing so.” Obama even compares a state law banning infertility treatment for unwed couples to active sterilization.

In a particularly noteworthy comment, Obama writes: “the connection between restricting infertility services to married couples and ‘preserving the integrity of marriage’ is so tenuous that it cannot be considered a narrowly tailored means of serving that interest.” This is arguable at best –

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ayres; chicago; constitutional; homosexualagenda; obama; obamainstructor; racism; racismandlaw; radiacal; teaches; vetting; vettingobama

1 posted on 03/15/2012 10:07:43 AM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Øbama = POS

with all due respect to pieces of excrement.


2 posted on 03/15/2012 10:11:04 AM PDT by bicyclerepair ( REPLACE D-W-S ! http://www.karenforcongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Just because two lesbians are not able to produce a baby, it doesn’t mean that either are infirtle.

Also, just because the taxpayers are not required to pay for someone’s treatment, it’s misleading to use the term “barred from receiving” when referring to the hopeful recipients of tax-paid services.


3 posted on 03/15/2012 10:11:20 AM PDT by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


4 posted on 03/15/2012 10:12:35 AM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
A NYT article from back then:Inside Professor Obama’s Classroom

Also:

“Racism and the Law” syllabus

2003 Final Exam

2002 Final Exam

2001 Final Exam

2000 Final Exam

1999 Final Exam

1998 Exam

1997 Final Exam | Answer Memo

1996 Final Exam | Answer Memo

5 posted on 03/15/2012 10:15:52 AM PDT by Theoria (Rush Limbaugh: Ron Paul sounds like an Islamic terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
but instead involves the broader principle that the government cannot be in the business of deciding who should bear children and who should not

There is only *one* who decides who should bear children and who should not - and I don't expect Obama to understand that.

The really interesting part of Obama's "reasoning" here is that he argues the government - which is really the people - has no right to determine that a infertile lesbian couple remain childless via lack of treatment, yet he has no problem with the government forcing the people to pay to murder the innocent child in a fertile woman's womb.

6 posted on 03/15/2012 10:30:11 AM PDT by liberalh8ter (Barack has a memory like a steel trap; it's a gift ~ Michelle Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

Thanks for that, I have put the links up on my site.


7 posted on 03/15/2012 10:31:14 AM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I’m still stuck in the late 80’s. Exactly how do you determine that somebody can be considered legally gay or lesbian? Do you have to sign an affidavit and produce witnesses that you’ve had gay or lesbian sex?

Can gay brothers or lesbian sisters marry each other?

Can a heterosexual couple have a dna test performed on their unborn child and abort it if it has a gay or lesbian gene?

Is a transgendered male to female, considered infertile and it mandated by healthcare laws that they receive infertility treatments?


8 posted on 03/15/2012 10:41:02 AM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

——Can gay brothers or lesbian sisters marry each other?——

Lolz

And how are homo marriages consummated?

Or maybe I don’t want to know.


9 posted on 03/15/2012 10:46:11 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Viva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
misleading to use the term “barred from receiving” when referring to the hopeful recipients of tax-paid services.

this language reappeared in the recent birth control debate, MSM talking point

10 posted on 03/15/2012 10:51:10 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Theoria
Thanks for that link. I'm looking it over.

As far as his use of 'professor', he's not a true tenure track prof, although students usually called adjuncts 'professor' anyway. Some get offended with that. I don't.

Most of the law exam questions are relatively normal as they take grey areas. Even the model answers really didn't show anything outside of subtle biases not uncommon by any professor that leans left. The Cass Sunstein reference however really caught my eye, trying to stop associating a widely maligned case like Lochner to Substantive Due Process.

11 posted on 03/15/2012 10:51:42 AM PDT by Darren McCarty (Time for brokered convention)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo
Can gay brothers or lesbian sisters marry each other?
A twofer! Racist and homophobic.


Oh, wait! You meant siblings. My bad. Never mind. {;^)

12 posted on 03/15/2012 10:53:34 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Okay, that was funny.


13 posted on 03/15/2012 10:57:10 AM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter

Indeed. he wants the law to steer outcomes that are contrary to all precedent. To overturn existing laws that block the outcomes he desires. Pure radicalism.


14 posted on 03/15/2012 11:07:23 AM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Indeed. What prevents two sisters/brothers from marrying? No off-spring can result from their union.


15 posted on 03/15/2012 11:09:36 AM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
Okay, that was funny.
Thank you! I'll be here all week. /lounge lizard
16 posted on 03/15/2012 11:19:38 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

The questions that you pose here are directly to the point. What we will have if these National Socialists have their was is a return to the days of the Unholy Roman Empire when brother married sister and so on....


17 posted on 03/15/2012 11:21:03 AM PDT by RichardMoore (There is only one issue- Life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
What prevents two sisters/brothers from marrying?
Death? Or was that a trick question?
18 posted on 03/15/2012 11:21:30 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
THE NEXT cause....Man, did the Mormons shoor themselve sin the foot! Should have waited a hundred years, rite? po·lyg·y·ny noun \-nē\ Definition of POLYGYNY : the state or practice of having more than one wife or female mate at a time — compare polyandry, polygamy First Known Use of POLYGYNY 1780
19 posted on 03/15/2012 11:34:02 AM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

What I find most interesting, is why we have not EVER heard from any of Prof. Obama’s students.....

Hmmmm.....you’d think SOMEONE would speak up....whether for him or against him...someone? Anyone?

Buehler? Buehler??


20 posted on 03/15/2012 11:36:05 AM PDT by Lucky9teen (Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading.~Thomas Jeffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Man, did the Mormons shoor themselve sin the foot!
I'm confused. Do Mormons have leaky boats, have fallen arches that need support or have foot fetishes?

Just kidding!

21 posted on 03/15/2012 11:38:13 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
The stupidity of Big Government Intervention in action:

"The question deals with a hypothetical lesbian couple that wants to have a baby. Their state prevents health providers from providing infertility treatments for unwed couples; the couple’s state-provided healthcare therefore refuses them coverage for such procedures.

I know this is preaching to the choir, here, but I wanna rant anyway:

1. There should be no place for 'state-provided healthcare'.
2. Infertility treatments are not "healthcare" even if there is such a thing called 'state-provided healthcare'.
3. Elective care such as Infertility Treatments should never be covered even if you don't believe in either #1 or #2. It is highly expensive and has limited success rates. It also tends to have complications (as in multiple births, just for one small example).
4. If you can't afford an Infertility Treatment, then how on earth can you afford a child???
5. So if the state is doing both #1 and #2, and you end up with a child, now the state also has to support you supporting the child. Is this enough nonsense for you yet, you public policy makers??
6. And finally: if you don't have 'state-provided healthcare' and don't do infertility treatments, then you don't have to worry about the homosexual complications, now, do you? You also probably don't spend nearly as much money in your state budget, and can lower the state taxes, and then everybody can afford to do want they want to do on their own!!

< /end rant... cleansing breath >

22 posted on 03/15/2012 11:39:45 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Should have waited a hundred years, rite?
I believe their religious ceremonies happen more frequently than centennially.

Just kidding!

23 posted on 03/15/2012 11:40:08 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

“And how are homo marriages consummated?”

Anally.


24 posted on 03/15/2012 11:45:45 AM PDT by dennisw (A nation of sheep breeds a government of Democrat wolves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

It’s actually based on a core tenet, a base assumption of leftist ideology.

If a person does not have the means to exercise a “right”, then that “right” is effectively being denied to him. And based on another core assumption/tenet, the government as the guarantor of rights is then responsible for making the means available to him to exercise that right.

Understanding the liberal ideology doesn’t make me sympathize with it in the least, but it keeps the keyboard prints off my forehead.


25 posted on 03/15/2012 11:51:23 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Once a year?


26 posted on 03/15/2012 11:53:21 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

I mean, what does the law say about consumation now? Is the inability to consummate a marriage, between a man and a woman, still grounds for a civil annulment?

What the hell difference does it make for homos?

It’s insane and sickening. Here In MA, marriage licences are made out to “Person A” and “Person.”


27 posted on 03/15/2012 12:02:03 PM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Viva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Thanks, Now this 2001 radio Obama interview makes more sense

..If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. ..

28 posted on 03/15/2012 12:06:03 PM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

From the Racism and the Law:

“10) Reparations — Given the perceived failures of the
traditional civil rights agenda in bringing about racial equality in the US, a number of black commentators argue that a program of reparations is the only legitimate means of making up for threehundred plus years of slavery. More recently, some white commentators have also supported a variant of the reparations concept — for example, the government financing a Community Reinvestment funds that would be controlled by the black community and render affirmative action obsolete. Do such proposals have any realistic chance of working their way through the political system? Would there be any legal impediments to such a broadly-conceived reparations policy?”


29 posted on 03/15/2012 12:44:41 PM PDT by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Radicalism trumps common sense. It isn't important to people like Obama whether something makes sense or if their position is completely hypocritical. The important thing here is that we need to “change” the order of the universe, an order that was dictated by old white men who had the audacity to compose a governing document that when followed, severely restricts the legislative shackles that people like Obama and Ayers feel should be placed on us unenlightened serfs.
30 posted on 03/15/2012 12:45:41 PM PDT by liberalh8ter (Barack has a memory like a steel trap; it's a gift ~ Michelle Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

This from a late term abortion voter.


31 posted on 03/15/2012 12:56:06 PM PDT by Karliner ( Jeremiah 29:11, Romans 8:28, Romans 8:38"...this is the end of the beginning."WC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

hahhhaha...good one!


32 posted on 03/15/2012 5:09:45 PM PDT by dennisw (A nation of sheep breeds a government of Democrat wolves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter

Irony is that his worldview was on display back in 2008, but many people thought that Wright was merely a convenient tool rather than a mentor. From the latest expose, we know that his Harvard mentor, soft spoken though he was, not a ranter, was like Obama himself, a very angry man.


33 posted on 03/15/2012 6:19:56 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

I was wondering if that one fell flat...


34 posted on 03/16/2012 5:05:37 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MrB

actuarialily./.... it took me a few minutes to get your dry dry joke


35 posted on 03/16/2012 12:12:43 PM PDT by dennisw (A nation of sheep breeds a government of Democrat wolves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson