I keep hearing on the news and radio, and reading in the paper and internet that President Obama is a "Constitutional scholar". This is true even in the writing of the AMAC president. I have not seen, nor can I find any writings by Obama that would lead me to believe he is a scholar of anything. He was a lecturer on the Constitution at a law school. This does not make one a "scholar". This makes one a "professor". What he taught seems to be his interpretation of what he would like the Constitution to be, not what the Founders believed when they wrote it. I would consider someone like Mark Levin to be a scholar on the Constitution, not our esteemed President, Obama!
I agree with the writer, Obama is a sworn enemy of the constitution as he thinks"The Constitution is a flawed document" .I believe he has no regard for the constitution and had no intention of ever being guided by it when he swore to uphold the constitution when he took the oath of office. He is an avowed marxist lenninist and anyone who does not believe that should read his writings. I don't understand how the people of this country elected him. They knew nothing about him yet, the cast their votes for him. What does that say for the people. MY TWO CENTS
Technically the US Constitution is flawed. Let me explain my reason for saying that. If the framers of the constitution had thought the document was perfect and would never need interpretation would the supreme court have been necessary? Scholars study the document and try to arrive at the true intentions of the framers but I believe they intended the document to be a bit vague realizing that times change and the Constitution would need to be modified and updated to suit the changes. It could be argued that the sitting Congress is the problem since they enact the laws not giving enough thought to the constitutionality of the enactments. The real problem is, as it turns out, is the Supreme court itself. Ironically, the individual justices believe they can interpret the documents intentions but their opinions are flawed by their own bias. A new law may stricktly adhere to the Constitution and be voted down by the court bias. The opposite is just as likely. Whole point is, even scholars read their own bias into the document. It is human nature. So whether Obama is a scholar or not, he is controled by his own bias.
The answer to your original question is unknown. It may be the spin the controlled media put on it.
Technically the US Constitution is flawed. Let me explain my reason for saying that. If the framers of the constitution had thought the document was perfect and would never need interpretation would the supreme court have been necessary? Scholars study the document and try to arrive at the true intentions of the framers but I believe they intended the document to be a bit vague realizing that times change and the Constitution would need to be modified and updated to suit the changes. It could be argued that the sitting Congress is the problem since they enact the laws not giving enough thought to the constitutionality of the enactments. The real problem is, as it turns out, is the Supreme court itself. Ironically, the individual justices believe they can interpret the documents intentions but their opinions are flawed by their own bias. A new law may stricktly adhere to the Constitution and be voted down by the court bias. The opposite is just as likely. Whole point is, even scholars read their own bias into the document. It is human nature. So whether Obama is a scholar or not, he is controled by his own bias.
The answer to your original question is unknown. It may be the spin the controlled media put on it.
Technically the US Constitution is flawed. Let me explain my reason for saying that. If the framers of the constitution had thought the document was perfect and would never need interpretation would the supreme court have been necessary? Scholars study the document and try to arrive at the true intentions of the framers but I believe they intended the document to be a bit vague realizing that times change and the Constitution would need to be modified and updated to suit the changes.
I can't disagree with you more vehemently than if I were standing in front of you. Everybody needs to read The Five Thousand Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen. The Founding Fathers were very specific in writing the Constitution. They learned from history and were not about to have it repeat by their mistakes. We are not a democracy, we are a Republic, HUGE difference. No democracy has ever succeeded in the history of the world.
Do you know that back in the early 1900's democracy was equated with Socialism? Neither did I. Read the book.
The Constitution was written based on "Natural Law" and "Human Nature" NOT on culture. As long as natural laws and human nature don't change, neither will the Constitution.
We are a Democratic REPUBLIC, not a democracy.
__________________
Page 1 of 1 sorted by
AMAC Forum -> Politics -> Why do people keep referring to Obama as a Constitutional scholar?
