XPost: alt.politics.obama, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.constitution   
   From: ws21@cornell.edu   
      
   On 4/9/12 2:28 PM, Mason Barge wrote:   
   > On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 20:39:30 -0400, Ubiquitous  wrote:   
   >   
   >> RealClearPolitics spots a very funny defense of President Obama's   
   >> ignorant comments on constitutional law. Press secretary Jay Carney tells   
   >> Fox News's Ed Henry they're actually evidence of superior knowledge:   
   >>   
   >> 	Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor.   
   >> 	One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his   
   >> 	words, the president "obviously misspoke earlier this week",   
   >> 	quote "he didn't say what he meant and having said that in order   
   >> 	to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it." I thought   
   >> 	yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak.   
   >> 	What do you make of the president's former law professor   
   >> 	saying he did?   
   >>   
   >> 	Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president   
   >> 	of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not   
   >> 	believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a   
   >> 	preposterous premise and I know you don't believe that.   
   >>   
   >> 	Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more   
   >> 	than you and I about constitutional law.   
   >>   
   >> 	Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday   
   >> 	the president was not clearly understood by some people because   
   >> 	he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.   
   >>   
   >> Shorthand for what? Here's a quote from another law professor, New York   
   >> University's Ronald Dworkin, in the New York Review of Books:   
   >>   
   >> 	The prospect of an overruling is frightening. American health   
   >> 	care is an unjust and expensive shambles; only a comprehensive   
   >> 	national program can even begin to repair it. If the Court   
   >> 	does declare the Act unconstitutional, it will have ruled that   
   >> 	Congress lacks the power to adopt what it thought the most   
   >> 	effective, efficient, fair, and politically viable remedy--not   
   >> 	because that national remedy would violate anybody's rights,   
   >> 	or limit anyone's liberty in ways a state government could not,   
   >> 	or would be otherwise unfair, but for the sole reason that in   
   >> 	the Court's opinion the strict and arbitrary language of an   
   >> 	antique Constitution denies our national legislature the power   
   >> 	to enact the only politically possible national program.   
   >>   
   >> "The strict and arbitrary language of an antique Constitution." Could it   
   >> be that Obama's comments were "shorthand" for this sort of contempt   
   >> directed against the very document he is sworn to uphold?   
   >   
   > The enormously liberal law schools in the northeast get a lot of these   
   > Constitutional "experts" whose primary point of view is that the Supreme   
   > Court should act as a liberal super-legislature to counterbalance any   
   > Republican presence in the White House or Congress.   
      
   In this case he's saying just the opposoite, thaet tehe Supremes should   
   no be tying to overthrow a liberal advance.   
      
      
   --   
   Conservatives believe that government should not help people do   
   anything. To ratiionally holdjthat position they must believe that they   
   are superior beings who will rise to the top in such a system. So   
   apparently most conservatives are egoists and many are too dumb to   
   understand how dumb they are.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)