Robbie, it’s unfortunate that you never took one of President Obama’s constitutional law classes when he was teaching at the University of Chicago law school. If you had, you would know that in America, it is the accuser who must prove his accusation.

And if you had ever taken a Con Law class taught by anybody, you would know that they don’t cover that in Con Law. Dumbass.

Kerry,

Someone beat me to it already, but burdens of proof are not taught in Constitutional Law.

Stop licking the bottom of the guy’s shoe because he was a professor of ConLaw. I have taken ConLaw, and I know several professors who have taught ConLaw. Take it from me 1) teaching ConLaw to a bunch of students who have never had ConLaw (and are scared law students, taking it in their first year) doesn’t require a deep mastery of the Constutition; and 2) professors are usually professors – and not practicing attorneys – for a good reason. Think about it.

Sorry – it’s late, and I didn’t see the spelling error. Before anyone calls me on it: I know how to spell Constitution.

Dear Anonymous Name-Caller… While I have never attended law school, I do know that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution contains the “due process of law” statement. One of the fundamental principals of that due process is the burden of proof resting upon the accuser. That was my point.

And to Black Magister: to suggest that one can obtain a position on the faculty of the University of Chicago School of Law (currently ranked 6th in the nation)without a mastery of the Constitution, is absurd on its face.

Personally, I like having a president who taught Constitutional Law for 12 years.

Kerry, you’ll have to forgive me. The Framers of the Constitution saw fit to create a specific group (the judiciary, specifically, the Supreme Court)whose SOLE JOB is to interpret the Constitution. That job doesn’t fall with the executive.

Rather, his or her job is to execute (see how the words are similar?) the laws sent to him by the legislative branch. In that respect, s/he should be more experienced (to simplify it greatly) in “operations management” much like a chief executive officer. There’s that “executive” word again. Funny how that thing keeps creeping up!

So, in the sense that I’d rather leave the Constitution to the professionals whose sole purpose in life is to eat, sleep, and breathe the Constitution, I’d also like my executive to have experience in executing things.

I guess I’m just old-fashioned. You’d prefer your executive to be a Constitutional scholar (which is fine, if he was applying to be an attorney, judge, or justice); I’d prefer mine to be an executive. Experience in a previous position as an executive, such as governor (GWB, Reagan, or Clinton, if you’d like a more comfortable example). Also, and this is a self-serving, yet relevant example, because I likened the job of running the nation like running a business, I think some business experience (or education) would be useful.

I know you’ll attack it, but GWB had an MBA from Harvard, which, while I haven’t checked the latest handy-dandy “ranking” poll, I would presume is pretty high up on the list for business schools.

It’s nice that he has Constitutional training, but it doesn’t do him much good in the role he is limited to by the very same document. In fact, his Constitutional knowledge is irrelevant in the sense that he can’t really do much with it except pointing out when something is unconstitutional, which, again, is not his job.

If you didn’t read this far, here’s the executive (darn!) summary: Presidents are, and should be, executive officers.

>>>If you didn’t read this far, here’s the executive (darn!) summary: Presidents are, and should be, executive officers.<<<

I did read this far; several times, in fact, looking for a flaw in your logic. I can't find one, so I'll just concede the point that most US presidents – at least in modern times – had executive branch experience as the stronger points on their resume. President Obama had none, and this was a legitimate criticism of him that was certainly discussed from day one in the campaign.

If it didn't persuade enough voters that he wasn't qualified, it was probably because they weren't thinking like you, in terms of separation of powers, but rather at the totality of his government experience; constitutional scholar, state legislator, US Senator.

In politics, the lines dividing the 3 branches of government get crossed all the time; lawyers run for congress, retired legislators get appointed to the bench in circuit court, and anyone with public visibility and track record of success can easily launch a viable campaign for an executive office like mayor or governor.

Like any hiring decision in the business world, there are other factors besides a job applicant's direct experience in a specific field that can carry weight.

If it didn’t persuade enough voters that he wasn’t qualified, it was probably because they weren’t thinking like you, in terms of separation of powers, but rather at the totality of his government experience; constitutional scholar, state legislator, US Senator.

Well, that is certainly a point for debate as well. I wouldn’t consider his professorship government experience, but that’s my personal opinion, and you obviously hold a different one. We are getting away from the topic, though, and I’d rather not let this discussion stray any further than it already has. We’ve gone from a suspicious person impersonating a doctor at a town hall meeting to the qualifications of the executive. If you have anything else to say on the original matter, I’d be happy to discuss.

It saddens me to hear that my opinion has failed to impress an anonymous name-caller of your stature. But then I remember that my opinion was shared by 52.9% of the voters on November 4, and I cheer up once again.