Our new president once lectured in Constitutional Law. He and his vice president are both lawyers who consider themselves well-schooled on the subject, yet both men frequently mangle citations of our founding documents. Although hay was made of Joe Biden's gaffes on the campaign trail, scant attention has been paid to similar mistakes by his boss.
The flubbed oath of office is well-known, but before a profoundly silly headline like Slate's "John Roberts, Fallible" becomes conventional wisdom (who thought John Roberts was infallible, anyway?), it's worth noting that the goof happened when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was interrupted by the (then) president-elect. Minutes later, and well before next day's "do over" on the oath, Paul Kangor noticed a conflation of language from the American and French Revolutions in President Obama's Inaugural Address.
Kangor was right to question the curious way that Obama and his head speech writer skated past the centrality of life as an inalienable right.
Unlike Bill Kristol, I do not regard the Inaugural Address as "unabashedly pro-American and implicitly conservative." There is more to conservatism, and more to patriotism, than willingness to acknowledge our founding fathers.
The sleight of hand in the Inaugural Address ("all are equal, all are free, all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness") came at the expense of the Declaration of Independence, but President Obama is equally cavalier with the Constitution. In 2001, he faulted that document for making it difficult to justify "redistributive change." As president, he looks forward to appointing at least one Supreme Court justice who will or won't pass muster based, he says, on "what is in the judge's heart."
That criterion is a perfect summary of why the debased liberalism we have suffered with for three generations prefers activist judges, because heart-reading is secular shorthand for "by their fruits, you shall know them."
Unfortunately, arsonists have more social cachet than shepherds, which explains why only judges working to change the status quo are considered "good." On the one hand, our new administration congratulates itself for the enthusiasm with which President Obama wants to let a million flowers bloom. On the other hand, even principled opposition to any presidential initiative is rudely dismissed as so much fertilizer. All but a few pundits avert their eyes from that paradox because (per the Inaugural Address) there is work to be done if we're ever going to shake free of the Bushian implosion that purportedly left us standing pat, favoring only the prosperous, misunderstanding our own power, indifferent to suffering beyond our borders, and falling for false choices between our safety and our ideals.
A pretense to the wisdom of Solomon is what British columnist Gerald Warner flagged as the most dangerous ingredient in the character of the politician now finding his footing -- and, remarkably, his first executive experience -- as president of the United States.
Obama is, as one friend put it admiringly, "a chameleon who makes Bill Clinton look awkward and honest." Before succumbing to fulsome praise for "the smartest man in the room," or raising a glass to his promised "restoration of science to its rightful place," we must remember that intelligence and wisdom are not synonyms, and that "science" in the context of the Inaugural Address means either "global warming" or "embryonic stem cell research." Advances in climatology and ultrasound imaging are not welcome. Recognition of the biology behind the successful wolf control measures championed by Alaska's effervescent governor do not fit the preferred narrative, either. In other words, it is crucial to "recall the reality that lies behind the rhetoric," as Warner wrote to people who are "cocooned in a warm comfort zone of infatuation with America's answer to Neil Kinnock."
More particularly, Warner continued, "Denouncing 'those who seek to advance their aims by 'inducing terror and slaughtering innocents' comes ill from a man whose flagship legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, will impose abortion, including partial-birth abortion, on every state in the Union."
Warner makes a fair point, although it is not accurate to characterize FOCA as Obama's "flagship" legislation, seeing as how he has so many flagships. For one thing, his nominee for Attorney General hopes to change the prevailing interpretation of the Second Amendment as an individual right. For another, his staffers recently chastised the Speaker of the House for letting the cat out of the bag about an economic stimulus package that includes significant funding for contraception overseas.
Reading about Nancy Pelosi's argument for contraception as a money-saver, one sees the handiwork of hard-charging young staffers having conversations along the lines of "We need to repair roads and bridges, but we can approach aging infrastructure from two sides, and wouldn't it be great to ensure that there are fewer people around to stress the capacity of what we already have?"
Were the principles involved followed as zealously as President Obama and his dimmer acolytes might wish, the end result would be a dystopian version of Disneyland. Think of a theme park built by Charles Darwin and Friedrich Nietzsche, where princesses sing anthems to tolerance rather than true love, postmodern poetry marks special occasions, and iron discipline is welded to the familiar aphorism that "there's so much that we share, that it's time we're aware, it's a small world after all." Then add Willy Wonka running a Ministry of Fun, and dwarfs who despair of ever making a shot through basketball nets of regulation height.
Fortunately, we are not likely to face that predicament, if only because our new president has finely-honed political instincts. Faced with an "Extreme Home Makeover" project that spans multiple time zones, President Obama used his Inaugural Address to ask and answer the requisite question ("Can we do it? Yes, we can!").
His unflagging support for abortion will continue to be nettlesome, however, and the myopia with which he and his bench-warming Vice President view our founding documents rests largely on the warping influence of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. The de facto litmus test for Supreme Court nominees, for example, is a logical consequence of two cases that vie for the gold medal in flawed legal reasoning: the majority opinion in Roe that Justice Harry Blackmun wrote back in 1973, and the majority opinion that Justice William O. Douglas wrote for Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965.
Robert Nowall| 1.28.09 @ 6:16AM
"Repeat after me"...doesn't seem that hard to do, does it?
Jason| 1.28.09 @ 7:54AM
I am convinced that Obama has nothing but contempt for our constitution.
http://www.rightklik.net/
Jeremiah| 1.28.09 @ 7:57AM
You people are cynical and weak.
Grow up.
Todd| 1.28.09 @ 8:41AM
Did you read the article yesterday about the virtues of being cynical Jeremiah? We are damn right to be cynical and it is the grown up attitude to do so and to see things as they really are instead of what some certain charlatans would have us believe. You want to live in a land of make believe and hope, go ahead Jeremiah but you are the one that needs to grow up and who is weak. Are we weak because we don't support a welfare State and believe in the individuals responsibility for his own well-being?
Pingback| 1.28.09 @ 11:28AM
Hard Times for Our Founding Documents « Depravity links to this page.
Stan Redmond| 1.28.09 @ 12:06PM
Jeremiah: .
"I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration." -Sec. State Hillary Clinton
Crusader| 1.28.09 @ 2:25PM
Stan, the dims are in power now. Now, we won't hear about "debate," we will hear about "obstructionism." Geez I'm already hearing it on local talk radio where I live. The host is chastising House Rs as being childish and obstructionist because these are "tough times" and "the people" want (the proverbial) "something" done. Yet just a year ago House Ds were principled, patriotic heroes every time they opposed GWB.
Up is down and black is white and right is wrong. It is the Dims la-la land.
Bob Montgomery| 1.28.09 @ 3:38PM
"Citizens of the world, our time has come!" This uttered even before you guys realized he was the messiah; but HE knew! The founding documents have been relegated to the dustbin of history.
Michele San Pietro| 1.28.09 @ 3:46PM
Obama puts on airs. And that's not good at all.
Thom| 1.28.09 @ 4:30PM
We only have the rights we are willing to exercise. We only have the freedoms we we are willing to fight for. Both are under served at the moment.
My words but hardly original thoughts with regard to this Nation’s founding.
Pingback| 1.28.09 @ 4:47PM
The American Spectator : Hard Times for Our Founding Documents links to this page.
Alan Brooks| 1.28.09 @ 7:12PM
Jeremiah couldn't back up his Gitmo statements yesterday, either (only three waterboardings and that's it). He's striking out at first base more and more.
perhaps a change of venue might do him some good?
cnr| 1.28.09 @ 7:16PM
If conservatives ever wonder why liberals hold them in contempt, just look at the amounts of scorn heaped upon even the most moderate liberal ideas.
G| 1.28.09 @ 7:44PM
Watch FREE full length Movies, TV Shows, Music (over 6 million digital quality tracks), Unlimited Games, and FREE College Educations @ InternetSurfShack.com
Jim| 1.28.09 @ 9:01PM
Obama is arrogant,selfish socialist thug, nothing more, nothing less. He is devious but he is not intelligent, nor is he an articulate speaker, he cannot function without a pre-packaged response.
He is also in his actions childish, in short he is a buffoon.
Jeremiah| 1.28.09 @ 10:12PM
cnr, there's no such idiocy as a "moderate liberal idea". It's a double oxymoron: liberals are not moderate and they have no idea.
We don't liberals in contempt, we just kick their butts for breakfast.
cnr| 1.28.09 @ 10:14PM
Isn't it supposed to be: "We don't HOLD liberals..."?
Jeremiah| 1.28.09 @ 10:16PM
No time for holding. Time to kick.
Leroi| 1.28.09 @ 10:38PM
"...Blackmun plumbed unexplored depths of the Constitution to discover an unrestricted (and until then, wholly imaginary) right to abortion. His discovery was made possible by what Douglas had earlier called "penumbras and emanations" associated with "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights." ..."
Douglas had to resort to "penumbras and emanations" because since the New Deal the SCt, including Douglas, had given the government all power. To have rights, exceptions to that power must be found, and since privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution it must be a "penumbra or emanation" of something that is in the Constitution.
On the other hand, if the Constitution is a grant of limited and specific powers to the federal government, then the federal government is not granted a right to invade privacy except as specifically permitted, and no "penumbras and emanations" are necessary. So Griswold becomes simply: the Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate privacy as embodied in this case in private birth control decisions.
And, since abortion is also not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the federal government has no power to regulate or affect it.
Pingback| 1.29.09 @ 9:21PM
Birth Control links to this page.
stmichrick| 1.30.09 @ 10:36AM
Hey Bob,
This is the first of the 'teaching moments' you ridiculed a while back.
I think it is clear to most people why Republicans stood together on this. Hopefully it will continue when more leftist 'Christmas trees' come down the chute or when something truly onerous like moving to import battlefield terrorists into the U.S. judicial system.
The electorate was drunk when they elected our 'American Idol' president and may respond well to well-enunciated hangover prescriptions by authentic conservative leadership.
Thom1s| 1.30.09 @ 4:19PM
Heard the latest?
Obama is going to change the oath for members of the armed forces. Instead of swearing to protect the Constitution, members will be asked to take an oath to protect the President, thus converting what has been a magnificent force serving the Republic for the last 233 years to Mr. Obama's private security force.
Pingback| 1.30.09 @ 8:53PM
Bookworm Room » Three things to read links to this page.
Pingback| 1.31.09 @ 4:44PM
Bookworm Room » What a cigarette will tell you about a man links to this page.
Pingback| 2.2.09 @ 2:03PM
Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness: Good Enough? « New Wineskins links to this page.
bjknjkn| 8.20.09 @ 2:19AM
Always leading the avant-garde of fashion without compromising traditional craftsmanship of luxury leather goods
Louis Vuitton
Louis Vuitton Replica
Louis Vuitton outlet is also active in other ...
CheapLouis VuittonReplica Handbags,Purses,Wallets Outlet and
Louis Vuitton Replica
Designer Bags,Shoes Outlet Store - discount price is our special offer, ...
Louis Vuitton Outlet
dropshippngwatch| 8.30.09 @ 9:58PM
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Replica Watches Trade
Replica Watches
Replica Emporio Armani Watches
Replica Fendi Watches
Replica Ferrari Watches
Replica Fortis Watches
Replica Franck Muller Watches
Replica Graham Watches
Replica Gucci Watches
Replica Guess Watches
Replica Harry Winston Watches
Replica Hermes Watches
Replica Hublot Watches
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com
fdsjk| 10.18.09 @ 11:26PM
shanghai massage
turntable bearings
fjkds| 11.13.09 @ 9:17AM
beijing massage
jkh| 11.19.09 @ 10:15PM
MKV Converter,
Convert MKV File
gfyuf| 2.9.10 @ 2:05AM
Due to the holidays, we’ve got many new users here who recently got an Apple iPod touch or an www.itunes.com/download. To use it you must first download and www.itunes.com. The instructions to download it and install it are below.itunes download is needed in order to sync your device, and also to download or sync applications or music from the App Store.