It cannot be any clearer. Barack Obama, the favorite to be elected the President of the United States of America in barely a week’s time, sees the American Constitution as an obstacle rather than a guiding document. Let that sink in for a moment. Ponder what that really means and rationalize how a man with such disdain for the Constitution – your Constitution, our Constitution – can possibly in good faith take the oath of office and swear to protect and defend our Founding Document.
Way back in March 2008, seemingly an eternity ago, Ed Whelan wrote of Obama’s Constitution.
But Obama’s “fundamentalist” name-calling is misplaced. Originalists understand the Constitution–not “our democracy”–to be “fixed and unwavering” (apart from the amendment process it provides, of course). They recognize that, precisely because the Constitution leaves the broad bulk of policy decisions to legislators in Congress and in the states, there is lots of room to pursue and adapt different courses through the democratic processes. No originalist believes that judicial respect for the operations of representative government will guarantee that “we will be rewarded and all good will flow.” This is a straw man. The virtue of originalism lies foremost in protecting the democratic decisionmaking authority that the Constitution provides. Our legislators will be sure to mess up plenty, but at least citizens will have the ability to influence them–and replace them.
Or, conversely, to elect more of them, including a President atop the Executive who clearly views the Constitution as an obstacle to “political and economic justice in this society,” which can be circumvented – nay, in Obama’s eyes, corrected – through legislative process. The threat to the Constitution is real, ladies and gentlemen. It is under assault, and the intent is to bypass the Constitution in order to “spread the wealth around,” which is, of course, “good for everybody,” in spite of the limitations of the silly and restrictive Constitution.
Let it be clear: Legislative application sought by Obama and a Pelosi-Reid Congress is a circumvention of the Constitution. Because, short of a infinitely more difficult Constitutional amendment process or even a new Constitutional convention, so significantly un-Constitutional are the envisioned fundamental changes desired that such changes and expansion of the federal government and the required accompanying conscription of individual liberties are patently unlawful.
Whelan, in March, concluded correctly.
In the end, an examination of Obama’s record and rhetoric discloses the stuff he is made of–his own constitution. Beneath the congeniality and charisma lies a leftist partisan who will readily resort to sly deceptions to advance his agenda of liberal judicial activism. Given the likelihood of so many changes in the membership of the Supreme Court over the next eight years, it is particularly important that voters this November recognize the real Obama.
And, in order to recognize the real Obama, it must be considered how the Constitution for him is an obstacle rather than a guiding Document. He has made this quite clear through his own words, not anyone’s distortion of them.