Obama: A card-carrying civil libertarian?

The respected National Journal rates Obama the most extreme Left wing senator. He's the Left's equivalent of Jesse Helms.

"Civil Libertarian"? No, Obama's just another ACLU extremist who'll advance the Left wing agenda to destroy our liberties.

Wow Alice you sure do know how to ratchet up fear. Can you tell us what your candidate stands for? Do you have anything positive to say? ...Didn't think so and that explains your desperate attack.

Alice:

Please tell me how the ACLU is destroying our liberties.

Seems like it is W and McCain that are doing that pretty well themselves.

Way to go Alice! Thank God we have you to defend us against all those extremist civil liberties like the freedon from unwarranted searches and the right to free speech. Otherwise these libertarian extremists might force our government officials to obey the law and protect the constitution that they swore to uphold and defend.

With all due respect to Barack Obama, Mr. Rosen is absolutely wrong. It seems stranger than odd that Mr. Rosen, a pseudo-legal historian, would declare that Mr. Obama would become the “first” civil libertarian President in a field that includes the likes of James Madison – who was instrumental in giving us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or Thomas Jefferson – who penned the Declaration of Independence, the French “Declaration of the Rights of Men and Citizens” and who, along with Madison, led the protest against the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798. And let’s not forget that the field also contains Abraham Lincoln – who saved the Union, led the country to abolish slavery and whose leadership put in motion the 13th and 14th Amendments. The list is not exhaustive. Suffice it to say that Mr. Obama would become be the “first” civil libertarian President only to someone who believes that history goes back no further than 1950.

Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe all were slave owners. Sorry, no "civil libertarians" there, even though slavery was legal at the time.

A case can be made against Lincoln as "civil libertarian" considering his unconstitutional suspensions of Habeus Corpus, the most basic of freedoms. Although I would agree that on the balance, he probably deserves the label.

Thank you John W for that clarification. I missed the funniest line in the article. I guess the requirements to qualify as a "legal scholar" are not terribly strict these days, although to be fair the article doesn't say he is a legal historian.

Luke,

Sometimes you just crack me up.

I never mentioned Monroe. I’ve never thought of him as a civil libertarian.

Second, unlike you, I don’t immediately exclude Jefferson and Madison from the category of “presidential civil libertarians” simply because they indulged the hypocrisy of slaveholding. They were, after all, among those who led this country to independence from England which, in turn, allowed us to begin implementing the ideals of freedom. Not only did they give us the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they were also, in no small part, responsible for planting the specific seeds necessary to remove the hypocrisy of slavery from our shores. I don’t care to give a more detailed history lesson on how they did this, so I commend you to history and their writings for vindication of these points.

Third, a case can be made in defense of Mr. Lincoln’s act of unconstitutionally suspending Habeas Corpus. He was faced with the unhappy choice of declaring martial law and suspending Habeas corpus - on the one hand - or finding himself and the rest of Washington D.C. surrounded by hostile States in rebellion – on the other. Maryland, by which D.C. is bound on three sides, was on the verge of secession. Riots, local militia action and acts of sabotage had already interfered with the movement of troops through Maryland toward the Capital.

As Lincoln himself put it, insurrection “in nearly one-third of the States had subverted the whole of the laws . . . Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?” He had a point. The common law doctrine of necessity allows for the disregard of laws when there is no other lawful (or less illegal) means of avoiding a greater evil. Therefore, even if he was mistaken, his mistake was not so far off the mark – in contrast to what we now see with our current executive. It was certainly not enough to deprive Lincoln of the epithet “civil libertarian” under the circumstances – especially in light of the balance of his actions.

In any event, I am glad that you agree that Lincoln still holds his title. My point is made against Mr. Rosen’s article as long as one preceding President could be categorized as a civil libertarian. Lincoln will do. Arguably, Kennedy and Johnson – with their sympathy for the civil rights movement and support for Civil Rights legislation then under consideration – would also fit that bill. I am sure that I could find other suitable candidates if I gave it enough thought. In any event, Rosen was wrong.

“. . . although to be fair the article doesn't say he is a legal historian.”

Posted by: Tom O | March 3, 2008 5:15 PM

Which is why I referred to him as a pseudo-legal historian. He may not have claimed any expertise in the field of legal history, but he certainly tried his hand at it by making historical comparisons.

Obama is a card carrying civil libertarian that's a JOKE, Obama is a super liberal, to liberal for me. I will never vote for Obama, I will only support Clinton in November. Therefore, what Clinton stated is true, Clinton is more electable in November.