Barack Obama considers himself a constitutional expert. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 10 years. Both are listed in the top 10 law schools in the country.
But don’t be fooled. Obama is constitutionally challenged in at least one key area.
Example one comes from Obama’s book, “Audacity of Hope” (page 53), where he quoted then misinterpreted the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
… [T]he essential idea behind the Declaration – that we are born into this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bundle of rights that can’t be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will – is one that every American understands.
Well, not every American, most significantly, Obama.
Obama’s choice of the word “born” as his interpretation of the Declaration’s launching point for the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness was calculated, obviously to protect his belief in abortion, but, of course, inaccurate.
The Declaration clearly stated these rights commence at “creation.” Framers reiterated this point by stating they are endowed by a “Creator.”
Worse, Obama attached a string to the ‘bundle of rights” with which babies arrive, saying rights can be taken away by a person or a state with “just cause.” Many will assume Obama was speaking of the death penalty, but not so fast. Obama has problems with the death penalty. Rather, Obama believes abortion is a “just cause.”
Here is what Obama said when arguing against Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act during Senate floor debate. This was legislation clarifying the terms “person,” “human being,” “child,” and “individual” in Illinois statutes included any baby born alive, no matter what gestational age or circumstance of birth:
… I just want to suggest… that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.
I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
Incredible stuff. Not only did Obama make no sense, he showed just how far he would go to safeguard abortion.
First, Obama contended age is a determining factor whether constitutional rights apply.
Second, Obama reverse-argued that late-term abortions are already unconstitutional if those babies survive. By claiming a “child that was delivered to term” already had constitutional “protections,” but giving those same protections to a child delivered before term would “forbid abortions” of the younger child, Obama was asserting abortion of the older child is already forbidden.
(It would seem Obama intentionally misrepresented this point to his colleagues, since he previously sponsored partial-birth abortion legislation with a health loophole against partial-birth abortion legislation without one. Obama certainly knows abortion is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy up to and throughout the delivery process for almost any reason.)
Three, even if a pre-viable baby survives an abortion, the pregnancy has been terminated. The mother got what she wanted. What more does Obama need, a dead baby? Yes.
Last, Obama’s word choices condemned him: “… because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child”? Only if a child is not defined a child can we “allow somebody to kill” her? Obama instinctively knows abortion kills.
Some Catholics use the term “seamless garment” to express their belief that all human life must be protected, from conception to natural death.
Obama’s term would be the “seamless abortion garment” to express his belief that all human life must be killed if abortion is intended, from conception to some as yet unpinpointed time after birth.
When is that point, senator?
Related special offer: