Why?
One word and one phrase.
The word? An acronym named “FISA.”
The phrase? “Faith-based programs.”
Obama was OK with the FISA amendment bill, and openly so, before opponents like Feingold and Dodd even had a serious chance to try to block it.
Specific to constitutional law, why did Obama think Big Telecom needed a “get out of jail free card”?
(Here’s a link to all my “Obama + FISA” posts.)
Faith-based initiatives?
First, Obama is on record as wanting to expand them.
Add to that what I am going to assume is a shell game, a deliberate one, and NOT naivete, over the idea that federal vs. private funds can be and will be “segregated” by faith-based groups. (Our segregation of funds to Israel has sure stopped it from building a wall segregating Palestinians, hasn’t it?)
Top it off with B.O. giving us little idea what programs will or will not cut mustard in his administration, like this one, and his record here is scary.
Specific to constitutional law, I’ve long said most current faith-based programs at least challenge constitutionality if not going well beyond it, and that’s without B.O. wanting to expand them. I don’t need a rhetorical question here.
(Here’s a link to all my “Obama + fait” posts.)
Finally, the University of Chicago doesn’t strike me as a hotbed of progressive constitutional law, and Cass Sunstein doesn’t strike me as being as progressive as he cracks himself up to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment