Posted on 09/08/2008 7:21:29 PM PDT by Chet 99
Obama to Palin: 'Don't Mock the Constitution'
By Peter Slevin
FARMINGTON HILLS, Mich. -- Sen. Barack Obama delivered an impassioned defense of the Constitution and the rights of terrorism suspects tonight, striking back at one of the biggest applause lines in Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's speech to the GOP convention.
It was in St. Paul last week that Palin drew raucous cheers when she delivered this put-down of Obama: "Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights."
Obama had a few problems with that.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
We know that he graduated Magna Cum Laude, which is top 10% of his class and that Harvard Law School exams are graded anonymously (i.e. without hte student’s name on them...just an ID). Perhaps he had help....perhaps not.
He may be a Marxist, but he might be a decent legal scholar, or have had incredible mentoring along the way from Larry Tribe etal.
jas3
He’s been thumbing through speeches of previous VP nominees looking for something to say in public. He’ll be back before long.
Aren't those two the same guy?
A couple of items come to my mind:
First, Obama claims to have taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for a decade. He is not a professor there, at least in the traditional sense, he’s more of an adjunct professor/lecturer. As such, he would not have been teaching the general Constitutional Law course unless the university were really hard up. That course is usually reserved for some prominent full professor used to draw recruits to the school, the best of the best, shall we say? At most, what Obama taught was probably some intermittent seminars on specific aspects of Constitutional Law such as civil rights. The chance that he taught anything anywhere close to criminal rights is very slim. And I have seen nothing in his background that indicates he touched criminal law in practice (except perhaps as a perp).
Second, liberals have worked long and hard to divorce Constitutional rights from responsibilities of citizenship. They support voting rights for felons, abortion rights for women, welfare rights for slug-a-beds, full Constitutional rights for illegal immigrants and foreign enemy combatants. The Constitution is to them a weapon with which to bludgeon government and anyone who disagrees with them. It is not surprising that Obama is personally offended by the idea that one does not extend the Constitution guarantees to America’s enemies since it should extend to everyone the U.S. touches regardless of whether that person has accepted the responsibilities of citizenship.
Okay, a third thought: Obama takes all criticism way too personally and it is the way he is going to be defeated. I can only presume that he has led a coddled life up to this point and doesn’t know how to respond to honest criticism or even dishonest criticism. Perhaps he has spent too much time around people who are politically correct and can’t fathom why people are questioning The Anointed now.
Correction, that should be braying jackass.as it is and they are.
Once you show the US your real birth certificate, then you will no longer be mocking the constitution
That is exactly right!
Big O, or just Zero, doesn’t understand that the Constitution stops at the border and does not apply to terrorist aliens who would kill Americans.
It couldbe Borack the foot-towel boy at the Mosque...
Or it could be Borack the Indonesian muslim, trying to get into this job for the Jihad of it...
"Yes sir, terrible dilemma. That it is, yes siree bob. What to do, what to do?"
I know what you're saying, and that was my first thought, too, but I decided I'd let someone else say it.
Moron!
Habeas corpus does not apply to non-Americans.
It seems that he is admitting by his offered example, that Barrack is a Moslem name.
Also, why is he referring to so-called, Anglo-American tradition. He seems to hate America’s Anglo-Saxon heritage at any other time.
forget the argument about the unborn.
0 and plugs want to kill born babies. 0 refused to criminalize the killing of babies who survived an abortion.
forget the unborn argument. what has greater traction is highlighting his stance on babies that survive abortions. 0 wants to kill them.
You'd be surprised at the number of Harvard Law School Graduates (or graduates of any law school) who have never actually read the constitution.
Well, I’m being medium sarcastic, because I don’t necessarily want anybody killed without needin’ it. But I just think that the guys on the ground will be looking for ways to deal with the faux-legal question.
He can’t really be this stupid. Can he?
Well, I’m being medium sarcastic, because I don’t necessarily want anybody killed without needin’ it. But I just think that the guys on the ground will be looking for ways to deal with the faux-legal question.
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.