Obama on the Constitution

According to his acolytes, Barack Obama is a constitutional law scholar.

He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for 10 years. He often references this credential in touting his own knowledge and understanding of the Constitution.

But what does he really know about the U.S. Constitution?

How does he actually view it?

Does he see the Constitution, as the framers did, binding the authority of the federal government?

Or, does he take the view prevalent in most U.S. universities and law schools today that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" that adapts to changing times, conditions and mores?

You don't need to be a "scholar" to understand the Constitution. It was written to be easily understood by ordinary people – ranchers and farmers and men who worked with their hands in the 18th century. In addition to leaving us with the final document, the framers left us with hundreds of pages of writings about the debates they had with each other over the drafting and ratification process.

There can be little mistake about what they meant, what they had in mind, what they were thinking and why if you take the time to read the Constitution and those papers.

The legal debate today is over whether we should follow the letter and spirit of the Constitution, or whether is merely a symbolic guidepost whose meaning can be changed by clever arguments by attorneys and judges.

Is it really necessary for us to take seriously the restrictions the Constitution places on the powers of the federal government?

To that all-important question, I'm afraid the unequivocal answer from Barack Obama is a resounding "no."

Let me quote his own words, from pages 92-93 of "The Audacity of Hope":

"What the framework of our Constitution can do is organize the way by which we argue about our future. All of its elaborate machinery – its separation of powers and checks and balances and federalist principles and Bill of Rights – are designed to force us into a conversation, a 'deliberative democracy' in which all citizens are required to engage in a process of testing their ideas against an external reality, persuading others of their point of view, and building shifting alliances of consent. Because power in our government is so diffuse, the process of making law in America compels us to entertain the possibility that we are not always right and to sometimes change our minds; it challenges us to examine our motives and our interests constantly, and suggests that both our individual and collective judgments are at once legitimate and highly fallible."

What does that mean?

Not much, I'm afraid.

Considering the man taught constitutional law at a major university, the lack of clarity and precision in this written statement is astounding and somewhat alarming.

There's not much substance here, at all. It's not much more than gibberish. But let me attempt to decipher it.

The long and the short of it, as far as I can tell, is this: "The Constitution is not the binding law of the land. Instead, it is a framework for stimulating debate – a guidepost for testing our ideas."

In other words, Barack Obama reads the Constitution like he reads the Bible. Both, he believes, contain some good ideas. But no one should take either too literally.

Last year, Obama talked about the kind of judges he would appoint – especially to the U.S. Supreme Court. We all understand, or should, that the job of a judge is to interpret the law, not make it. The role of the judge is to apply the law without fear or favor. The judge is not supposed to bend and twist the law to shape an agenda.

Yet, look at what Obama is looking for in his judicial appointments: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Those are nice sentiments, indeed – but altogether rather narrow, don't you think?

For instance, I'd also like to see judges appointed who have empathy for people who work hard, keep their families together, obey the law and contribute to their communities. I don't see many federal judges or members of Congress who have much of an appreciation for people like that and the sacrifice and commitment it requires.

But, more to the point, Barack Obama is speaking here in code. He is telling his constituency that he is going to appoint judges who will continue to transform the Constitution from the document designed to shackle the government to one that frees Washington to do whatever it wants whenever it wants.

In other words, he intends to unshackle the government from constitutional restraints. Of course, when you unshackle government power from constitutional restraints, those shackles, as the framers understood, tend to wind up restraining liberty.