The man said, in a radio panel discussion, “I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot.”

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/obama-constitution/2008/10/27/id/326165

Well, he was probably studying in the madrassa when US history was taught in eighth grade. But really, you don’t really have to know anything about the Constitution these days. After all, wasn’t he elected president of all 57 states anyway?

At the school, Mr. Obama taught three courses, ascending to senior lecturer, a title otherwise carried only by a few federal judges. 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. Mr. Obama was so interested in the subject that he helped Richard Pildes, a professor at New York University, develop a leading casebook in the field.

His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law. Mr. Obama improvised his own textbook, including classic cases like Brown v. Board of Education, and essays by Frederick Douglass, W. E. B. Dubois, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, as well as conservative thinkers like Robert H. Bork.

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…

One of these days I’ll write that post. My conclusion is that Obama’s entire law school teaching career was predominantly concerned with race as well as election law. Interesting, no?

And by the way, that’s quoting an article that appeared in the NY Times in July of 2008. So it was known.

MoM has a summary worth reading, too.

—————–

> I have no idea how well-versed he is in other areas of con law.

I think The Big 0 is much more of an expert at the con, than he is at con law.

Ronald Reagan identified that as liberalism’s overarching hubris more than four decades ago:

“This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/timechoosing.html

“If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?”

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/govspeech/01051967a.htm

http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/29270.pdf

I’ll just note that, tactically, it was better for the first two rulings to have been in the affirmative, because that allowed Judge Vinson to explain why there were wrong. 🙂 Also, he cites Judge Hudson’s decision with praise.