Obama is a Constitutional scholar in his own right. The problem is that he does not see the Constitution in the same way I do. He does not see it as something to be revered, something to be defended, or something to be protected. He sees it as an obstacle to what he wants to achieve for America.

In a 2001 interview on Chicago public radio, (listen) Obama lamented that during the civil rights movement, "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issue of the redistribution of wealth." The problem, he said, was that the court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution." He said that "the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. [It] says what the states can’t do to you. [It] says what the federal government can’t do to you, but [it] doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

In this perhaps unguarded moment, Obama became one of the few liberal politicians candid enough to admit that the Constitution poses a fundamental obstacle to their agenda.

Mr. Obama had been sworn in and took an oath upon his admission to practice law in Illinois in 1991. He was sworn in and took an oath as an Illinois State Senator in 1997. He also swore an oath in January 2009 to uphold the Constitution of the United States. A view that the Constitution is some constraint that the government should break free from is at odds with the oaths he had taken.

I'm grateful for a Constitution that formally limits the control of government. The founding fathers were breaking free from a tyrannical government, and they wanted to ensure that the government of the USA never got that powerful. Today, we have presidents who want to be kings. They want the power to shape society, control the economy, dictate health care, and even tell you what kind of light bulbs you can use in your home.

I saw this bumper sticker the other day: Has anyone seen our constitution lately?
Continue reading at the original source →