DENVER - Maybe it’s his background teaching constitutional law.
If elected president, Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama said one of the first things he wants to do is ensure the constitutionality of all the laws and executive orders passed while Republican President George W. Bush has been in office.
Those that don’t pass muster will be overturned, he said.
During a fund-raiser in Denver, Obama — a former constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School — was asked what he hoped to accomplish during his first 100 days in office.
“I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution,” said Obama
Other goals for his first 100 days: work out a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq; make progress on alternative energy plans and launch legislation to reform the health care system.
Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage
Photo credit: Reuters/Rick Wilking (Obama talks to students during a visit to a school in Thornton, CO)
Trackback
167 comments so far
Previous | 9 … | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | … 1 | Next
profoundly necessary to end the signing statements and executive orders, though, ironically, this is exactly what W. did when he took the office.
- Posted by eliWow, lot of stupid people here. Obama’s a Harvard lawyer, he knows the law. What he’s saying is that he would work on getting rid of laws that he believes are unconstitutional. This doesn’t mean he’ll try to bypass Congress.
Calling him a marxist? Wow…idiocy.
- Posted by EdwardI think its funny there are about 30 comments correcting kdurham68. It just goes to show the power wielded by First Post.
- Posted by Casey“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.”
kdurham68, I must ask you: Why haven’t you posed these questions where they should be posed, to Bush? Your questions are important and need answers. Address them to the relevant target.
- Posted by 2eyes 2earsWe need to fight terrorism, but we need to have some common sense in doing so. I think Bush has gone a bit too far with the patriot act, but this was approved by Congress too, so they are at fault. I also think the Democrats go to far the other way. Not checking bags and not tapping phones where appropriate is just dumb.
I wouldn’t mind seeing some change. I think McCain is the same old thing so I doubt I’ll vote for him. But I’m a bit leary of Obama too. I’m afraid he will become the next Jimmy Carter of American politics and that is not a good thing.
Obama is a bit to socialist for me. I want less government, not more. Obama will have the government get more involved in the environment, health care and other areas and I’m sure that will not help.
Can we get a decent third party in this country?
- Posted by EnzoThere is hope for America. His name is Obama! We have an opportunity to open up a new page in the progress of America.
- Posted by UncledaddyThe promise of a President who will preside over the lawful progress of his administration is long overdue. It is a novelty too. A President who puts the Constitution of the United States in the forefront of his mission has been unheard of. The lust for power has been evident for the past seven and a half years. Power to push, bully, embarrass, deprive and neglect has been the ever ready weapon of this administration. This has to come to an end, and this man has proposed the only way to undo the damage of an administration of arrogance.
This country was founded on the premise that law should be the prime concern of our government, especially the laws that are the foundation of our body politic. I say, if you have to get behind someone, get behind someone who has an idea as to where to start making a change. Anyone who has been looking for how change will come, have now had a brief glance of the hope of America.
As to those who have the republican slant which includes slight of mouth trickery and diversion philosophy, I say, you already have had a glance of your ideals and they have led to the devolution of a nation. Somewhere in there you must find a reason for pride. However, pride in destruction is a sad approach to rule.
To JACK from Kansas: Barack Obama has two honorary Doctorate of Law degrees from Howard & Wesleyan.
- Posted by dr madThe following statement by the the University of Chicago confirms that he was indeed a professor:
“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.”
Finally! This is what i’ve been waiting for a canidate to say!
- Posted by Gary BTo Jack from Kansas, Line Item Vetos are unconstitutional. Please see Clinton v. City of New York for information on the matter.
- Posted by JacJackdurham68,
- Posted by zaExecutive orders are directives from the President. They are not subject to the approval of Congress, nor are they well defined by the Constitution.
Be patient, any actions now are a waste of time. Don’t forget who’s attorney general. The time will come.
- Posted by Joe BushYou know I would think this would please conservatives. I’ve been wondering how they would take to a democratic president behaving like Bush– adding signing statements to all of the bills he signs (saying he doesn’t have to abide by the law),claiming expansion of executive powers, etc. etc. etc. How lucky we are to have a candidate running for office who teaches constitutional law.
- Posted by melissaAfter reading all the comments here, I can only add this;
- Posted by Christi CaliforniaIf you vote for McCain and you make under $200k a year, you are dumber than a rock.
THANK YOU OBAMA…I knew there was a reason you had my vote and this is it. I’ve been waiting for a candidate to say this since 2000.
You not only have my vote but my support until the end of time!
- Posted by DonnatI hope that this will also include an impeachment request if there is evidence to support lies and deliberate deception to lead us into an aggressive, first strike war.
- Posted by gregI hope what is reported here is true and that Obama will revue and rescind Bush’s executive orders and seek to have all his unconstitutional laws overturned, but I still wonder why this “Constitutional scholar” said that he “sees no reason to impeach Bush” and I wonder if he still believes that.
- Posted by B YorkYES! Please, please let this intelligent, well-read and respectful man win.
- Posted by courtPLEASE
I think it would be very special if our politicians were rated on what they have accomplished, or at least made efforts to accomplish, rather than what they promise they are “going to do” in the future.
For instance, so many promises to “bring the troops home”. Yet little to no efforts to do so since Demos won the majority of both houses of congress almost two years ago.
Pelosi, for instance, continues to pretend she’s unaware that there is no need for her and her fellow dems to have 60, or 67 votes, in order to pass a law to bring the troops home. Hello? Nancy, darling, just don’t submit a funding bill without a timeline for withdrawal. If the chimp refuses to sign it, so be it; there will be no more money for “his” war. (Or could it be it’s “their” war, as well?
If candidates quit making promises, think of the advertising dollars which could be diverted into useful programs, etc.
- Posted by malcolm drakeYES ! A President who understands and respects the Constitution !
- Posted by ChuckTo those who are saying Obama as president does not have the right to overturn what Congress has voted on clearly has not paid attention to what Bush has done his entire 8 years in office. He continually vetoes legislation that even HIS supporters rally for and has made history by unconstitutionally increasing the powers of the executive branch. The legislative branch was created by our founding fathers to keep the executive branch in line. They realized that an egomaniacle president (sort of like an English king) will ignore the will of the people unless the people are represented. All Obama is saying he will do is attempt to reverse the perversion Bush has injected into the White House.
- Posted by MSanchez