obama in his own words how he views the Constitution

[edthecynic]

Obama taught constitutional law at the University level for 10 years. I'm sure he understands it better than any right winger in the nation.

yes surely Obama had never injected his personal views while proselytizing to his students either.....

FactCheck.org: Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?
facts here say different. Even though the U of Chicago had allowed Obama to call himself "professor", Obama was titled as "senior lecturer" he was NOT a professor. Nor was he tenured. In fact Obama never taught more than3 classes per year. And not all of his classes were Constitutional Law.
Bottom line is Obama is no expert on the US Constitution.

Bottom line is CON$ are pathological liars. Whenever a CON$ervative says something is a "fact" you can be certain it isn't!!!

The U of C did not "allow" Obama to call HIMSELF a professor, the U of C CALLED Obama a professor THEMSELVES. And he didn't teach 3 "CLASSES" a year, he taught 3 COURSES a year!!!

Your post is a perfect example of how CON$ are shameless liars, willing to lie in the face of the truth from their own sources. And your post got thanks from other morons too stupid to catch you lying even after you gave them the very link that exposes your lie, a testament to the complete ignorance of the CON$ervative sheep!!!

From your OWN link:

We agree that details matter, and also that the formal title of "professor" is not lightly given by academic institutions. However, on this matter the University of Chicago Law School itself is not standing on formality, and is siding with Obama.

Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be "a professor."

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.​

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'M a woman. Would you like to tell me what rights of mine are not protected by the Constitution which should be? I do so love being informed by total strangers what I'm supposed to think and believe, based solely on my reproductive anatomy.

The original Constitution? The right to vote for starters.

I haven't noticed that extending the right to vote to women - or to people without a stake in the system, for that matter - has had a particularly positive effect on the nation.

But as it happens, the original Constitution doesn't say anything about voting qualifications at all. Voting eligibility was largely left up to state law. And, in fact, women DID vote in certain states at different times in our nation's history prior to the 19th Amendment.

Please note the phrase "which should be" in my question. Just because YOU think something should be in the Constitution doesn't mean I necessarily think it should be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're still avoiding the question.

I agree with you, the US Constitution is the best founding/governing document in the world. I have no doubt that Obama thinks that as well.

But that doesn't mean its a "perfect" document.

there nothing in it I would change so yes it's perfect.

The Constitution allows for change. Even the founders didn't think it was perfect.

Dunno if that was so much them thinking it was imperfect as it was simply that they knew circumstances change over time, and the nation would need the ability to adjust the law to match.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Obama taught constitutional law at the University level for 10 years. I'm sure he understands it better than any right winger in the nation.

really?
Sweet: Obama did NOT "hold the title" of a University of Chicago law school professor. - Lynn Sweet

Did you read your own link?

Obama held the title of "Senior Lecturer", not "Professor". But "Senior Lecturers" are considered "Professors" by U of C, just not tenure-track.

And, as a "Senior Lecturer", he still taught Constitutional Law for 10 years.

obama taught no more than three classes per year. Not all were on constitutional law either.
and obama as you stated very clearly never held the title of professor...I find it coincidental that the U of Chicago is now stating they "consider" a senior lecturer to be a "professor"....Please.....
I bet some of the real professors at that school are not very happy about it.
this is a bunch of crap....Forget what obama says. Pay very close attention to what he does.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

really?
Sweet: Obama did NOT "hold the title" of a University of Chicago law school professor. - Lynn Sweet

Did you read your own link?

Obama held the title of "Senior Lecturer", not "Professor". But "Senior Lecturers" are considered "Professors" by U of C, just not tenure-track.

And, as a "Senior Lecturer", he still taught Constitutional Law for 10 years.

obama taught no more than three classes per year. Not all were on constitutional law either.
and obama as you stated very clearly never held the title of professor...I find it coincidental that the U of Chicago is now stating they "consider" a senior lecturer to be a "professor"....Please.....
I bet some of the real professors at that school are not very happy about it.
this is a bunch of crap....Forget what obama says. Pay very close attention to what he does.

That would be 3 courses a year, not classes.

And your suppositions as to what the faculty of U of Chicago's opinions are is moot.

You might have a point, except that U of Chicago didn't just start calling Obama a Professor - they've been calling him that all along.

This isn't new - this attack started back in 2008. You're behind the times.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My God, you're ignorant. Just . . . wow.

Oh, wow. What a great, thoughtful, in depth response. I post a set of facts, which you can go verify yourself if you so wish. But really, if you don't know that all of those things are true, then YOU are the one who is ignorant.

No, dumbfuck, you didn't post "facts". You posted opinions, stated as fact. That's why they didn't require verification, or anything other than an acknowledgement of how ignorant you are.

But okay, if you really want me to explain HOW you're ignorant, we can do that too.

"After all, the constitution condoned slavery and relegated slaves to 3/5 of a person."

The Constitution did not "condone" slavery. It acknowledged that it was a reality and the law of the land at that time, because . . . well, it was a reality and the law of the land at that time. That is not an endorsement of the institution.

And it did not "relegate slaves to 3/5 of a person". Any vaguely-educated person - which clearly doesn't include you - would know that the compromise concerning the Census enumeration was actually the ANTI-slavery position, not an insult to the slaves. Or did you think it would be a good idea to give slave states, some of whom had larger slave populations than they did free, even more power in Congress?

"It was flawed enough that before it was even ratified, it was amended 10 times."

THAT is your opinion, and unsubstantiated. This is like saying that the Constitution is flawed because members of the Convention proposed changes to the original draft. The fact that the Bill of Rights was proposed so early in the process could - and should, given what we know from writings of the time - be seen as it being intended as part of the document from the get-go. Nothing anywhere suggests that the Founding Fathers were saying, "Oh, shit, this document sucks so badly at its job, we need to add more stuff to fix it!"

"It was flawed enough that before it was even ratified, it was amended 10 times."

Again, that is your opinion. In fact, lawmakers deciding they want to do something different does NOT mean that the original document was wrong or flawed. It just means they wanted to do something different. In some cases, it can be argued that the Amendment itself was a mistake.

So let me say this again. My God, you're ignorant. Just . . . wow.

 

[idb]

I think I have said the government has broken the postal service


I do not think I have expressed my opinion on Children born here by illegals. So for the record if a child is born here then they are a citizen.

I understand you questioning me to deflect the attention from how obama views the Constitution, but I have never signed an uncontitutional law, but obama has. When I said the healthcare law was unconstitutional. obama still signed it into law.

Actually, I directly asked YOU a question as to whether or not there was anything that you would change with the ORIGINAL Constitution. My line of questioning has nothing to do with how Obama views the Constitution.

So I see that you feel that the Constitution is perfect. I assume that you mean it is perfect NOW...which would mean that it was imperfect when originally written. Is that not correct?

If I felt it wasn't perfect I would say it needed to be changed. So what isn it in the Constitution that you want changed? NoTerm limits for the president? Make him a king have no more election? What is it about the Constitution do you want to see go away? and made perfect in your eyes?

It's perfect you say?
Then you oppose the three amendments that WikiPedia informs me have been proposed by the Republicans?
Just asking.

 

[xotoxi]

I do so love being informed by total strangers what I'm supposed to think and believe, based solely on my reproductive anatomy.

Don't forget your tits!

Your reproductive anatomy and tits.

 

[edthecynic]

really?
Sweet: Obama did NOT "hold the title" of a University of Chicago law school professor. - Lynn Sweet

Did you read your own link?

Obama held the title of "Senior Lecturer", not "Professor". But "Senior Lecturers" are considered "Professors" by U of C, just not tenure-track.

And, as a "Senior Lecturer", he still taught Constitutional Law for 10 years.

obama taught no more than three classes per year. Not all were on constitutional law either.
and obama as you stated very clearly never held the title of professor...I find it coincidental that the U of Chicago is now stating they "consider" a senior lecturer to be a "professor"....Please.....
I bet some of the real professors at that school are not very happy about it.
this is a bunch of crap....Forget what obama says. Pay very close attention to what he does.

Repeating the same lies I nailed you on earlier does not make you any less of a liar, it does make you a typical CON$ervative, though!!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My God, you're ignorant. Just . . . wow.

Oh, wow. What a great, thoughtful, in depth response. I post a set of facts, which you can go verify yourself if you so wish. But really, if you don't know that all of those things are true, then YOU are the one who is ignorant.

No, dumbfuck, you didn't post "facts". You posted opinions, stated as fact. That's why they didn't require verification, or anything other than an acknowledgement of how ignorant you are.

But okay, if you really want me to explain HOW you're ignorant, we can do that too.

"After all, the constitution condoned slavery and relegated slaves to 3/5 of a person."

The Constitution did not "condone" slavery. It acknowledged that it was a reality and the law of the land at that time, because . . . well, it was a reality and the law of the land at that time. That is not an endorsement of the institution.

And it did not "relegate slaves to 3/5 of a person". Any vaguely-educated person - which clearly doesn't include you - would know that the compromise concerning the Census enumeration was actually the ANTI-slavery position, not an insult to the slaves. Or did you think it would be a good idea to give slave states, some of whom had larger slave populations than they did free, even more power in Congress?

"It was flawed enough that before it was even ratified, it was amended 10 times."

THAT is your opinion, and unsubstantiated. This is like saying that the Constitution is flawed because members of the Convention proposed changes to the original draft. The fact that the Bill of Rights was proposed so early in the process could - and should, given what we know from writings of the time - be seen as it being intended as part of the document from the get-go. Nothing anywhere suggests that the Founding Fathers were saying, "Oh, shit, this document sucks so badly at its job, we need to add more stuff to fix it!"

"It was flawed enough that before it was even ratified, it was amended 10 times."

Again, that is your opinion. In fact, lawmakers deciding they want to do something different does NOT mean that the original document was wrong or flawed. It just means they wanted to do something different. In some cases, it can be argued that the Amendment itself was a mistake.

So let me say this again. My God, you're ignorant. Just . . . wow.

Cecilie this dipshit has said the Constitution does not protect anyones rights, he went on to say that it was those people who went to court to fight an unjust law was the ones who protect peoples rights.. imagne that. Your whether long indepth post will go over his head and is not worth the effort.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually, I directly asked YOU a question as to whether or not there was anything that you would change with the ORIGINAL Constitution. My line of questioning has nothing to do with how Obama views the Constitution.

So I see that you feel that the Constitution is perfect. I assume that you mean it is perfect NOW...which would mean that it was imperfect when originally written. Is that not correct?

If I felt it wasn't perfect I would say it needed to be changed. So what isn it in the Constitution that you want changed? NoTerm limits for the president? Make him a king have no more election? What is it about the Constitution do you want to see go away? and made perfect in your eyes?

It's perfect you say?
Then you oppose the three amendments that WikiPedia informs me have been proposed by the Republicans?
Just asking.

I am not familiar with any new proposed amendments. So I cannot give an opinion. As I said as the Constitution stands it's perfect in my opinion.

 

[idb]

If I felt it wasn't perfect I would say it needed to be changed. So what isn it in the Constitution that you want changed? NoTerm limits for the president? Make him a king have no more election? What is it about the Constitution do you want to see go away? and made perfect in your eyes?

It's perfect you say?
Then you oppose the three amendments that WikiPedia informs me have been proposed by the Republicans?
Just asking.

I am not familiar with any new proposed amendments. So I cannot give an opinion. As I said as the Constitution stands it's perfect in my opinion.

That's OK.
No argument here.