Saul Alinsky's Constitution.
Posted on 07/28/2014 10:42:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
Barack Obama famously declared that as a former teacher of Constitutional law, he actually respects the Constitution, unlike his predecessor in the Oval Office. Subsequent events make it fair to wonder exactly how he shows this respect.
Some on the Left barely conceal their disdain for the world-changing handiwork of dead white males. Reverence for the Constitution isn’t universal even among its chief custodians. Justice Ruth Ginsburg raised eyebrows when she advised Egyptian civic activists she wouldn’t look to the US Constitution as a model today. She pointed instead to the constitutions of South Africa, Canada, and the European Charter of Rights and Freedoms, praising them as “great work,” more recent and more generous in protecting “human rights.” The late Justice Thurgood Marshall also was cautious about putting too much stock in Constitutional guidance, asking a PBS interviewer: “What does the Constitution say about rocket ships?”
Actually, the Constitution says as much about rockets as it does about horses and buggies: basically nothing. The Constitution is not the US Code of Statutes, setting out the federal law. It’s more like the rule book or citizens’ owners’ manual that governs the government. It’s a uniquely successful compact in history. But it remains vital only as Americans understand it, support it, and demand politicians do likewise.
Citizens who accuse President Obama of violating the Constitution should have a clear idea what they mean. This would include being able to explain to a friend or child basic constitutional principles and describe the ways they are threatened. Here’s my attempt at a simple, easy to share explanation: Life is hard and sometimes dangerous. Government can help protect peace and security, but it’s important to think seriously about what government should be and do, as our Framers had to when they organized America.
The big thing they realized is government is unique. Some things need governing, but others just involve voluntary cooperation. Lots of people or groups--like street preachers, hotdog vendors, corporations, your mother—have things they want you to do: repent, buy stuff, call home. But government decides things you have to do or can’t do, at the risk of fines, jail, or, at some level of resistance, getting shot.
Government’s essence is controlling people—forbidding things, requiring things, and extracting the taxes to pay for things. Our Founders realized the power to control people, as opposed to offer or invite in voluntary exchanges is potentially dangerous. It must be limited and channeled, as in the apocryphal wisdom of George Washington: like fire, government is a dangerous servant and fearsome master.
The Founders figured out controlling people involves three different kinds of power: making rules, enforcing rules, and resolving disputes between people and between the enforcers and the people. They also realized the controllers could be kept honest and fair only if those different powers were kept apart: the people who make the rules shouldn’t be the ones who enforce them; the enforcers shouldn’t decide disputes between themselves and the people.
That’s why the Founders arranged separation of powers. They created Congress in Article I, the Executive in Article II, and the Supreme Court and judiciary in Article III.
Our Founders also realized the young nation sat at the edge of a continent it might grow to fill. Even the 13 colonies had a diverse mix of heritage, religion, resources, climate, industry, and so forth. They determined people should govern themselves as locally as possible. Daily government was left with the states. The national government would be limited to matters that truly needed to be nationally uniform. It was delegated only enumerated powers.
The Founders crowned their structure with a Bill of Rights, identifying some, but not all, of the sacred liberties and protections needed for the free pursuit of happiness. The finished work was an intellectual revolution more spectacular than the military revolution that made it possible. The path has not always been smooth or safe. But most people agree, it’s the most successful system of governing ever designed.
Some clever and sophisticated people today say the Constitution is outdated. It was designed for a small, simple society. Our modern world needs something more complex. This claim is curious, both as a matter of observable history and of theory.
If you hear such criticism, you might challenge it. Historically, ask if any other national system has lasted longer, or produced better fruits, including freedom, due process, stable government, opportunity, prosperity, and a magnetic draw to people around the world.
On theory, ask what has changed in the world or human nature that suggests government’s controlling powers shouldn’t be limited. Or why it makes sense to mix the powers to legislate, enforce, and judge. Ask too, if rigid, centralized government across diverse states and communities, geography, cultures, and economies makes any more sense than before.
The critics likely will talk about how things should be different; but they won’t show that anything has ever worked better than the United States Constitution. But the Transformer and his supporters find it very inconvenient. And for some, that’s all that matters.
“What Constitution did President Obama Teach?”
He taught Prostitution.
The only reason the Current Occupant now squatting in the White Hut EVER read the Constitution, was for the same reason W.C. Fields read the Bible - he was looking for loopholes.
And evidently he has found a few.
Saul Alinsky's Constitution.
Has even one person ever come forward that had Bams as a law professor?
He may have been paid to be on staff, but he never had any real students.
How to get around its weaknesses.
as a law professor?
As a professor, could never happen. He as an ad hoc lecturer regardless of what they called the position and over paid him for what he did. Cannot you just imagine this goof discussing relevent SC cases? I can, ah, well, you see, he....ah....dey....ah, ah....dolly madison...etc.
Who created the Mythical Barack Obama the Professor/Teacher of Constitutional Law?
Did he as grad student monitor a student discussion section? He has plainly told us what he dislikes about our Constitution, and the reasons. Why should we expect him to be its defender? The Oath of Office, you say?
It is laughable, but not at all funny!!!!
Have any of his former “students” ever been found to comment on his teaching abilities?
#1 way to thwart the Constitution - build up guilt over slavery, political correctness, and cowing of any critics of “black culture” to the point that the first leftist president identifying as “black” will not be held to account to the Constitution’s limits on power.
I like the story that John Lott tells about Obama. They were both teaching at the University of Chicago. In Obama’s case, the word teaching should be in quotes. Upon meeting him, Obama said to him “So you’re the gun guy”. And then he told him “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”
Obama may understand the constitution, but he certainly doesn’t agree with it...
Daily Constitution. That’s what he spews out.
Kenyan
That what I asking too
Any news media members ever track down Obama former students HELLO
I think our previous US Presidents ran for office we hear stories about Clinton Bush 41 and 43 Reagan Carter LBJ Nixon
It doesn’t to me either, but like all liberals he tries to fool everyone and only fools himself and them
Obama was never a professor, and he didn’t really teach the Constitution. He lectured on constitutional issues regarding minority rights.
Has anyone ever come forward as one of his “students” that he purportedly taught? I think it is yet another lie from this bum.
It is a flat out lie.
He was NEVER a professor of anything.
As a graduate student, and I know from experience, you are encouraged to, if not required to lecture or teach undergrads at some level on a few occasions.
It is not a permenant or even regular situation, its either for credits or to just help out.
Further, I have always wondered what exactly is “ Constitutional Law “???
That sounds like some crap that someone who knows absolutely nothing about the Constitution would come up with.
Either barry, his cronies or the sycophant press.
I would be willing to bet that if someone were to go back and look at the course offerings at that time, no such course even existed.
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.