To Jack From Kansas,

Barack Obama’s formal title was “senior lecturer,” but the University of Chicago Law School says he “served as a professor” and was “regarded as” a professor. In fact he was offered tenure-ship more than once which he declined. There is a difference between “Professor” and “professor”; Obama was a “professor” If you need fourther evidence please go to this site:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/wa s_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_l aw.html

Thank You

w

Jack,

Please. There is no viable defense of the use of the word “irregardless” in America. It shows an ignorance and disdain for knowledge inherent to people who launch unreasonable attacks on sound ideas like the one you brought here against the idea of reviewing and repairing abuse of executive privilege carried out by the Bush administration. “Better be ready to accept marxist ways if Obama becomes our next president.” Where did that come from? Is that really your argument for why he shouldn’t be president? Grow up. Be mature. Your comment provides a clear example of exactly why we need Obama to be president. It’s about time we actually placed intelligence and pragmatism at the top of our priority lists when picking a president, instead of evaluating how much in common he has with average Joes, or how ready for war he is. He will be president, IR-regardless of people like you.

Obama’s position as an instructor of constitutional law at University of Chicago has been verified with them. He was part time and did not have tenure as he was not interested in pursuing it full time. The University has said that the term professor is appropriate, that he received very high evaluations from his students and other professors, and that they would have been interested in his becoming full time and tenured.

Judges appointed politically regardless of their abilities? Sounds like a lot of GOP appointees. Obama’s selection of AG will be crucial. That individual will have an enormous job restoring the DoJ and prosecuting the BushCo administrators.

kdurham68 See the comments on signing orders and executive orders. Also do some review on the multiple problems constitutional lawyers from libertarian, conservative and liberal positions have with Bush’s usurping of power to the executive branch. Much of this has been in concert with Cheney who started in Nixon’s administration and learned from the failures then how to do it so Congress did not catch the problem. Plus he had 6 years of rubber stamp GOP and 15 months of stonewalling in the Senate.

Speaking of the Senate. It was specifically designed to operate in a more conservative way than the House, balancing the influence of legislation that was produced quickly so that it would get more consideration. A junior senator is exceptional if they accomplish much of anything in a short period of time their first term. Obama has actually done quite a bit of very solid work in those circumstances.

Certainly none of his laws in the US or Illinois Senates are anything close to Marxist. Nor does the president create laws. What ever programs or laws he proposes must actually go through Congress before he can sign them. No matter how many times conservative rhetoric tries to paint Democrats as socialists and marxists, there simply is no basis for it. I am a former Libertarian. I would have been Republican except that I am not a Christian and was not welcome. The Dems aren’t perfect, they sure aren’t socialists, let alone communists.

Withdrawing from an occupation that started as an illegal invasion has nothing to do with not fighting terrorism. Obama’s plans have everything to do with going after terrorists effectively instead of creating a fiasco astronomically worse than any threat we faced.

Since I decided to comment guess I did open myself up to pruning but didn’t know we were going to evaluate grammer and spelling. The expression has nothing to do with down grading teachers but rather as an expression of one’s ability to design. I was an engineer which did not require spelling. That is why we had a dictionary and thesaurus built into our word processor programs. Again I’m proably wrong but I believe it was one of the former presidents that requested line item veto power over bills passed by congress. By the way the word irregardless is real even tho non standard because of the two negatives and the word amongst is old english and mainly used in Britain.

Jack from Kansas, it’s “Supreme”. And “first”, not “firstly”. Not to mention, did you just write “irregardless”? Really? Yeesh, no wonder you’ve summed-up all things as “quit fighting terrorist”

So I guess you DO need an explanation. Yes, you are somwehat correct: Congress does legislate many, but not all, of the laws. The problem was Bush, upon signing them, would issue signing statements stating he’d ignore and choose to not enforce the law he was signing, which might not be legal. And thus it falls amongst other things legal problems such as his issuance of executive orders (laws that can be unilaterally created by the President under our system) that claimed broad powers that most likely fall outside of his constitutional authority and thus should be scrutinized as Obama said he would.

It is the answer to Hillary who says that Obama is all about talking but not doing. As we can see he has a clear idea how and what to do.

I have a feeling we may also see a special prosecutor appointed to investigate the fireing of the Attorney Generals, Lies about Iraq, and who condoned torture.

This is one of the most patriotic things I have heard in a while. Check to ensure that all laws are constitutional. Attitudes like this will keep the dream which is America alive.

Mr. Obama, I must ask you two questions:

1) As you are and have been a member of the United States Senate for the last four years, I would have expected you would have evaluated any legislation during that time period to insure you were helping to pass only laws which are constitutional. Do you, therefore, only intend to review laws from before you were a member of the Senate for Constitutionality or are those laws enacted since you took office also planned for review? If the former, please explain why you failed to take the time while you were in the Senate to review what your predecessors had done. If the latter, please explain why you were lax in carrying out your duties as a US Senator?

2) Since you have indicated it is your intention, if elected, to meet with your Attorney General to review existing legislation and overturn that which you consider unconstitutional, I must ask you to please identify precisely what power granted by the Constitution to the office of the Presidency allows such a unilateral action on your behalf? Do you believe that you are not personally subject to the US Constitution? The Separation of Powers given by that historic and monumental document does not allow the President to subsume the functions of the courts and the judiciary.

Thank god.