Obama and the Constitution
I’ve been perusing Barack Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope” today, hoping to go beyond the typical campaign rhetoric and find out what Obama thinks about issues and ideals. His chapter on the Constitution is pretty interesting, full of all sorts of quotes.
Ultimately though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution-that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.
In this regard, Barack Obama sides with Woodrow Wilson, who derided the “Fourth of July sentiments” of original intent. As Powerline’s Scott Johnson points out, Wilson was the chief proponent of the idea that our Constitution changes, not through amendments, but through the passage of time. This mentality brought us the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, which made it illegal to criticize the war effort, the military, the government, or the form of government.
Obama also writes:
I’m reminded that deliberation and the constitutional order may sometimes be the luxury of the powerful, adn that it has sometimes been the cranks, the zealots, the prophets, the agitators, and the unreasonable-in other words, the absolutists-that have fought for a new order. Knowing this, I can’t summarily dismiss those posessed of similar certainty today-the antiabortion activist who pickets my town hall meetings, or the animal rights activist who raids a laboratory-no matter how deeply I disagree with their views. I am robbed even of the certainty of uncertainty-for sometimes absolute truths may well be absolute.
Anybody else think of Bill Ayers after reading that?
What’s interesting is that Obama speaks of individual rights, individual liberties, and the importance of the constitution. Yet he never mentions that if we want to change the constitution, there’s no need to try and “interpret” it in today’s terms. We can simply amend it. Yes, the process is long and arduous. But Obama seems to believe that we need national conversations about these issues, and it seems to me a constitutional convention would accomplish some of these goals. Why he never brings it up is a mystery to me.
Oh, one more quote that doesn’t have anything to do with the Constitution, except that he tells this story in concluding his chapter on that great document. He talks of meeting with Sen. Robert Byrd (who just endorsed him) in early 2005. He says:
We spoke about the Senate’s past, the presidents he had known, the bills he had managed. He told me I would do well in the Senate, but that I shouldn’t be in too much of a rush-so many senators today became fixated on the White House, not understanding that in the constitutional design it was the Senate that was supreme, the heart and soul of the Republic.
I guess he decided not to take that bit of advice to heart.
May 28th, 2008 at May 28, 2008 - 12:49 pm
Anyone who cares about where this country will be in four (or worse - eight years) should be very scared of this line of thinking. I tremble when I think who he would appoint to the court.