John Armor
Not Protesting About Obama And The Constitution
By John Armor
May 2, 2010 - 1:01:33 AM

WASHINGTON D.C. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed every opportunity to talk about the Constitution while dressed and speaking as Benjamin Franklin. Then, President Obama decided to make a vacation visit to the Grove Park Inn, in Asheville, N.C. That’s just a hop, skip and a jump from my home.

So I planned a one-man demonstration, dressed as Franklin, as close as I could get on public property, to the main entrance of the Grove Park Inn. My wife protested that I really should "leave the guy alone when he’s on vacation with his family." I thought about it, and reluctantly agreed. So, this here is my version of "Standing on a Corner, Watching All the Presidents Walk By."

My main subject is respect for the Constitution. Obama has no such respect. The latest example came just today, Friday. Obama made a public statement that the new, stiff immigration law just signed into effect by the Governor of Arizona, involved "violations of civil rights."

It involves no such thing. The Supreme Court has long since ruled on a case concerning police stops for ID purposes. The Court ruled that a brief stop asking any citizen to identify himself is constitutional. Someone who was a Professor of Constitutional Law, as entirely too many reporters have misidentified Obama, would have known that. (Obama was the lowest order of faculty, a lecturer in law, and that only because some Trustees of the University of Chicago insisted that the Law School find a spot for Obama, somewhere.)

The main point is that Obama does not give a tinker’s dam about the Constitution. He is only concerned whether the preferred parties in any case are more likely to win than the politically disliked parties. Arizona has every right to pass a law that applies only to its territory, and for the benefit of its own citizens, concerning the legality of anyone who is in the state.

The Arizona law makes no new definition of who is an illegal alien, but accepts word for word the federal definition. Therefore, its new law will be ruled constitutional. I predict a 5-4 vote in favor of Arizona, because only four Justices on the Court believe that the Constitution is not a real barrier to whatever the current Administration wants to do.

This anti-constitutional position of Obama is not an isolated event, but commonplace. Look at Professor Liu, whom he nominated for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. Liu consistently wrote as a Professor of Law at the University of California, that judges have a right to change the meaning of the Constitution. Before the Committee, he assured them that he would "obey the Constitution" if confirmed.

People who respect and care for the Constitution do not want a second Justice to join the Court by lying about his or her prior career and writings. Anyone who has to lie about his or her own background to get on a court, doesn’t belong on the Supreme Court or any other court. But these are exactly the kind of judges that Obama prefers. They reflect the President’s views that the Constitution is like a ball of Silly Putty, to be reshaped at the will of a judge to favor a particular party.

Hint to Diane Sayer and ABC News: fire your researchers. Obama did not say what you reported, that he wanted his Supreme Court nominee to "follow the Constitution."  Obama only wants them to "follow the law" as he defines the law.

Here’s how I wanted to demonstrate against Obama’s false view of "the Supreme law" of the nation. I wanted to dress as Franklin, and carry a sign that said, "Who Do You / Trust with Your / Constitution? / ME? / or / Him?" Never mind me; think of Ben. Did he and his colleagues in Philadelphia, and the men and women through 1992 (the last Amendment) know and respect the Constitution? Shouldn’t the president, and all judges he nominates, share that respect?

Post Script: While we’re considering basic law, let’s talk about the Somali pirates. There is a well-established Law of Piracy, older than the United States. Under it, pirates confronted or captured in the course of attacking another ship, can be executed on the spot. There is no need for the international tapdance of nations, including the US, on where and how to try these pirates in any court.



© Copyright 2007 by canyon-news.com