A Living Constitution

Obama may not be old enough to be president.

h/t The Volokh Conspiracy

11 Responses to “A Living Constitution”

  1. Libertarian says:

    I have seen several rather convincing videos on youtube that show how Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery. This makes it entirely possible that Obama does not meet the constitutional citizenship requirements to become president.

  2. Noops says:

    Oh for fooks sake. This is as silly as McCain’s “controversial status” to being natural born. I love your blog. I check it multiple times throughout the day. But you’re beginning to sounds a little obsessive over Obama and everything Obama.

  3. Jeff says:

    Noops, did you read the whole linked article? It’s not really about Obama’s constitutional qualifications, but his practical ones. It also points out the absurdity of the liberal ‘living document’ view of the constitution.

    I don’t think Sebastian’s Obama coverage is at all excessive or obsessive. If a candidate for president with a solid chance for victory is the opposite of most everything you believe it, I think that’s pretty important.

  4. Sebastian says:


    It’s not making a serious suggestion that Obama is actually not qualified. I fully believe he is. The article is a satire piece on living constitutionalism, which Obama subscribes to.

  5. Noops says:

    I read it. In fact, I’d already read it on Volokh. I thought it was pretty silly there too. This isn’t really on the merits. I think it’s beneath the quality of the original author (Steve Calabresi), and has no real probative value. You could make the same straw-man silliness about any candidate, or for that matter, about anyone.

  6. Sebastian says:

    It is silly. It’s supposed to be. But the point is that if you unbind government from its constitutional anchor, what practical meaning are the limits? It’s a serious philosophical issue that I think needs more debate than it gets in the media.

  7. Noops says:

    To boot, there’s lots of absurdum type arguments in the article that could just as easily be used against McCain. “McCain’s staggering ineptitude would have us believe that we should have 13 combat brigades in Iraq for 100 years.” That’s the same sort of intellectual dishonesty shown in Calabresi’s article. I think he and we should have real, probative debate, as opposed to alarmist straw-man arguments and reductio ad absurdum theories.

  8. Sebastian says:

    Well, it’s written from a McCain supporter’s point of view, which Calabresi no doubt is, but it does illustrate how one can use one’s preferred political outcome to reinterpret a document that is supposed to bind government, not subject everything to the political process.

  9. Noops says:

    You’re right, and I didn’t mean to beat you up. I just think it should be a better conversation. That’s plenty naive, I know. But this, and places like yours, are, I think places where better debate gets made.

  10. Guav says:

    If we’re using the life expectancy of 1789, then doesn’t that make McCain like, 150 years old or something? Haha

  11. CorbinKale says:

    If you are going to make it up as you go, then why have a written Constitution? There is provision within the Constitution for amendment. Any attempt to change the Constitution, outside of that amendment process, is unconstitutional. Advocates for the ‘living document’ school of thought are selling something.