In an earlier life, Barack Obama was a student at Harvard Law School and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago law school. There is evidence that Obama taught a course in Constitutional law. Apparently Obama once said:

“I was a Constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.”

While a candidate for President, Obama had accused President Bush of not respecting the Constitution.

If nothing else it is clear that his legal education, refined by his stint as a law professor, has given him and his administration the intellectual tools to either override (the reality) or contort the meaning of the Constitution. The Fifth amendment of the constitution says that:

“No citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

I make it clear that I am not a supporter of Anwar al-Awlaki or any of his associates. It is probable that his death is an important victory in the war on terror. But,  Anwahy al-Awlaki is not the only issue here. In fact, there is a much more important issue – specifically the conduct of the government. The way in which Anwar al-Awlaki was killed, raises serious questions about the attitude of the Obama administration toward the Constitution of the United States. Update: This issue was recently the subject of an exposition by Canadian media.

When the Obama administration killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born citizen, it would have appear to have deprived him of his life without “due process of law”.

Of course, Obama does not see it that way. Why not?

The following articles contain interesting discussions of the Obama view of “due process” or rather what “due process” is not. Apparently “due process” does not require “judicial process”. This is in itself, is a good reason to get rid of this guy!

I feel sorry for Mr. Holder. Imagine having to defend this kind of stuff?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/holder-defends-obamas-view-of-due-process/article2370979/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/the-power-to-kill.html?_r=1

Constitutional rights – they are a “shield”, but can government use them as a “sword”?

The constitutional guarantee of citizenship in the 14th amendment was designed to be a “shield” against government. I.e. the majority cannot deny you citizenship. In recent years, the U.S. government has turned the 14th amendment guarantee of citizenship (born in the U.S.) into a “sword” to hunt people for taxes.

The purpose of a constitutional right is to provide people with a “shield” from government, not to provide the government with a “sword”.

There have been a number of recent comments and posts on this site discussing the apparent disregard of the Constitution. This is NOT a partisan issue. Of all the candidates for president in 2012, only Ron Paul respects the Constitution and believes that government is subject to it.

I would bet that Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who has even read the Constitution. Romney should go on a “weekend constitutional retreat”. It will provide him with plenty of ammunition to use against the current president – a man who believes that he can kill U.S. citizens abroad.

He can find the text of the U.S. Constitution here.