Constitutional Questions

by McQ | May 21, 2009 6:46 pm

David Axelrod, Obama’s senior adviser talking about the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice[1] and the Constitution:

President Barack Obama began interviewing potential Supreme Court candidates Tuesday, while a senior White House official defended the president’s stated preference for a nominee who will give the powerless “a fair shake.”

White House adviser David Axelrod said the U.S. Constitution, like any document of its vintage, must be subject to interpretation in a modern context.

“Fidelity to the Constitution is paramount, but as with any document that was written no matter how brilliantly centuries ago, it couldn’t possibly have anticipated all the questions that would be asked in the 21st century,” Mr. Axelrod said.

Barack Obama, today, talking about the prisoners at Gitmo and the Constitution[2]:

But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.

I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words – “to form a more perfect union.” I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never – ever – turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.

Per Obama’s[3] speech, the Constitution apparently “anticipated all the questions that would be asked in the 21st century” when it comes to Gitmo.

Yet there’s Axelrod, defending Obama’s desires for a Justice, claiming the Constitution doesn’t cut the mustard when it comes to the job description or duties of a Supreme Court justice (Constitutional interpretation/determination whether federal law passes Constitutional muster) and implying we must indeed “turn our back” on it for “expedience sake” and redefine the job (i.e. give the “powerless” a “fair shake” – a political job usually left to the legislature).

So which is it? Is it the powerful and foundational document which undergirds our country’s legal system and is still valid today or an outdated tome which couldn’t possibly anticipate all the questions of the 21st century?

Obama can’t have it both ways.

[Crossposted at QandO[4]]

  1. talking about the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice:
  2. talking about the prisoners at Gitmo and the Constitution:
  3. Per Obama’s:
  4. QandO:

Source URL: