Saturday, 24 January 2009

Obama - rank Constitutional hypocrite?

My friends, President Obama is more than familiar with the Constitution of the United States of America, not only is the former Senator now the President, he also taught Constitutional Law as a Professor at the University of Chicago Law School for more than a decade.

In his Inaugural Address he said the following about the Oath of Office he had just taken:

The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.

He continued, later in his address:

Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

All very interesting, but here's what I don't get. We now hear that in a meeting with Congressional Republicans on Friday called to discuss the proposed stimulus package, the President warned them about their sources of information by saying:

You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.

That's not all, it is also reported that he said to fellow Democrats:

If we don't get this done we could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town.

So there you have it, a Professor of Constitutional Law becomes President of the United States of America and tells his fellow Americans of the importance of the Constitution, especially at times of crisis no matter what expediency might dictate. He then proceeds totally to ignore any concept of the Separation of Powers riding roughshod over the Constitution's system of "checks and balances" to tell other elected officials how to behave, despite their consciences, constituents and mandates, and ties it to his re-election chances in 2012.

Nice. Obama, the change America needed?


  1. I have read a lot of dumb things on the Internet, but this is the dumbest I have EVER read.

    Well done!

  2. Well that is a cogently argued rebuttal, and certainly not the inane rantings of an Obamaniac.

  3. It's not persuasion when your aim is re-election and silencing of critics.

  4. He is not using his power to force the stimulus through, he is using his beliefs to persuade others.

    Your argument certainly has correct spelling and grammar, but attacks the president for attempting to persuade his colleagues to see things his way, which he is well within the bounds of the Constituion. Which, incidentally, 67% of Americans support, 15% more than voted for him on election day.

  5. He is using what others have called the 'bully pulpit', and he's using that in a particularly aggressive (telling Republicans to whom they may listen) and partisan (doing it to secure his and other Democrats' re-election) way.

    His percentage of popular support is not the end of the argument, the previous President enjoyed that on 12th September 2001. Nor does it necessarily render actions constitutional, President Wilson had popular support in the early part of the 20th century, but he was about the least constitutional President of the United States there's ever been.

    I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.