Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Obama For President

Two weeks from today, Americans will choose a new President. I'm voting for Barack Obama.

As a law professor, my biggest issue is judicial appointments. The next President will probably appoint 1-3 Supreme Court Justices and scores of lower court judges.

We've had eight years of Bush judicial appointees. They've been highly qualified -- you have to give them that -- but highly ideological. John McCain has expressed his strong support for the Bush appointees and pledged to give us more of the same. That's not what we need.

The Supreme Court in particular is balanced on a razor's edge. If the Republicans win and get even one seat, the Court will be hard-right conservative for decades to come. Many constitutional rights would be endangered.

That alone is reason enough to vote for Barack Obama, but there are many more reasons.

George Bush and the Republican party have been in control for the last eight years. And what have they brought us?

A disastrous economic collapse. Lowered standing in the eyes of the world. Domestic spying. Torture. Implacable government secrecy and unaccountability. Terribly mismanaged government agencies run by unqualified political cronies.

We need change, not more of the same. John McCain is not George Bush, but so many of his policies are George Bush's policies. In particular, he believes in the same economic policies that brought us the mess we have today -- he thinks deregulation and lowering taxes on the wealthiest Americans will solve everything. We've tried that for 8 years, and look what it got us.
John McCain claims to be the candidate of plumbers, bricklayers, teachers, and waitresses, but his plan to help them consists of cutting taxes for rich people. It's the same old trickle-down economics that got us where we are today.

John McCain has also gravely disappointed those who respected him for his so-called "maverick" image. Over the course of the year, he's changed many of his basic positions to match those of President Bush: on the Bush tax cuts, on torture, and other issues. He's run a fear-mongering, negative campaign, in which we've heard endlessly about Barack Obama's slight connection to someone who did bad things 40 years ago -- as though that were the key issue.

In choosing a running mate, McCain violated his pledge to put country first. As even leading Republicans have recognized, Sarah Palin is not qualified to be President if that should become necessary. She can't even face a press conference! And her abuse of power in personnel matters and disrespect for legislative investigation are frighteningly reminscent of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Barack Obama represents the change we need. He's shown good judgment throughout the campaign. He's got the better health care plan. He recognizes the importance of education. He'll work to restore America's standing in the world. And he chose a running mate with gravitas and experience who could step in and be President at a moment's notice if necessary.

He'll help the country on race relations. He's run a post-racial campaign. He's appealed to all American regardless of race and he hasn't asked for any special treatment because of his race.

And he's smart. The Republican party seems to think there's something wrong with being smart, eloquent, and talented. It's time to remember that these qualities are good. You don't get to be President of the Harvard Law Review without having something on the ball. We need a smart President.

Yes, one might wish that Obama had more years of national experience. But no candidate has everything. Obama has demonstrated wisdom and judgment beyond his years.

He's the future. He represents the change we need. McCain represents more of the same.

Obama for President.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Obama Unworthy to be President

Senator Obama, like the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, believes the Constitution of the United States is fundamentally flawed.

Justice Marshall, though, only believed the Constitution was flawed "because it treats women and blacks as three-fifths of a person" in reference to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 apportionment text "and three-fifths of all other persons" (This is an approximate quote from USA Today on or about September 17, 1987, the 200th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution.) Justice Marshall's error is explained below.

Obama, however, believes the Constitution to be flawed in it's entirety. This is far more serious. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4).

He believes not in the fundamental American premise that rights precede government, that in essence they are natural in origin, but that they must and by right ought to devolve from government.

Senator Obama in essence believes that the American principle of freedom is flawed.

Thus, Senator Obama is, by his own admission, incapable of honestly taking the oath of office since his "flawed" statement would contradict it.

(From above) Of course, it is not Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 that is flawed, but Justice Marshall's interpretation of it. Such an interpretation goes counter to the clear text, and intent of the Clause.

As evidence of his error, look at the same clause in the Confederate constitution, which reads "three-fifths of slaves." If the language of the Constitution made blacks 3/5 persons, then the identically constructed language in the Confederate constitution made them only 3/5 slaves. Slaves were, by Justice Marshall's flawed reasoning, better off under the Confederacy - they were 2/5 free.

What the language of Constitution does is make slaves whole and complete persons, but allowed the slave holding states to receive only 3/5 of their numbers in enumeration for representation purposes. In combination with the direct taxes phrase, this was perhaps the single greatest balancing compromise that allowed ratification of the Constitution.

Only flawed jurisprudence failed to treat slaves as equal persons - not the Constitution.