| | | He was a US Senator who did ... nothing. NOTHING. And for a total of less than four years, of which half was spent campaigning. He was installed as a Senator, not elected based on anything he had done. He was "picked" as the next presidential candidate after reading a speech written by a 23 year old kid at the convention.
He was NEVER a "constitutional law professor." That is just a lie. He was a "Senior Lecturer" who taught three courses.
Just to put a finer point on it, please name ONE "Constitutional Law Professor" at any major law school who has never published even one scholarly paper. Name one. NYT tells the story:
His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. …His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law…
[In] one class on race, he imitated the way clueless white people talked. "Why are your friends at the housing projects shooting each other?" he asked in a mock-innocent voice. ...
Mr. Obama was especially eager for his charges to understand the horrors of the past, students say. He assigned a 1919 catalog of lynching victims, including some who were first raped or stripped of their ears and fingers, others who were pregnant or lynched with their children, and some whose charred bodies were sold off, bone fragment by bone fragment, to gawkers. … "Are there legal remedies that alleviate not just existing racism, but racism from the past?" Adam Gross, now a public interest lawyer in Chicago, wrote in his class notes in April 1994.
In what even some fans saw as self-absorption, Mr. Obama's hypothetical cases occasionally featured himself. "Take Barack Obama, there's a good-looking guy," he would introduce a twisty legal case.
Liberals flocked to his classes[.] … After all, the professor was a progressive politician[.]
These are not the subjects of true "Constitutional Law" courses in a law school. These, in fact, are the kinds of courses non-majors would be drawn to.
Finally, he has repeatedly shown his fundamental lack of understanding about constitutional law through his actions. |
|
