Obama vs. Our “Obsolete” Constitution

I’ve gotten some very interesting emails regarding President Obama’s mandate commanding Roman Catholics (and many evangelical Protestants) to violate their consciences by providing mandatory contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals. The emailers noted that Obama’s action will force Catholics to challenge the president in court, particularly given that bishops are saying they will not comply with the law. It could mean another constitutional showdown over “Obama-care,” one that could likewise end up in the Supreme Court. Imagine: The Catholic Bishops v. Obama.”

What a fitting capstone to the Obama presidency. And imagine that a majority of professing Roman Catholics elected this man in November 2008.

If this issue goes to the high court, I wouldn’t bet my money on Obama, even with the two new “pro-choice,” pro-Roe liberals he added to the bench: Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Even the most “progressive” Supreme Court justice cannot avoid that old freedom-of-religion thing in the First Amendment.

All of that is remarkable enough. But I find it especially ironic given two other fascinating current news item relating to the Constitution:

Last week, President Obama did an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer. Obama expressed frustration at his inability to be the “transformational political figure” Americans elected. The “change agent” lamented that this was the fault of the American Founders—who Obama refers to as “men of property and wealth”—and their Constitution. Obama told Lauer:

What’s frustrated people is that I have not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes. But what I have been able to do is move in the right direction. And what I’m going to keep on doing is plot away, very persistent.

Obama is quite correct. His primary obstacle is the Founders’ system of separation of powers and checks and balances. His problem is a Congress and Supreme Court that is empowered to say, “No, Mr. President, that isn’t constitutional. You can’t do that in America.”

Well, Obama’s mandate to the Catholic Church could be the next such challenge, again impeding his self-perceived rise to transcendent political greatness. A Democrat-controlled Congress approved Obama-care, but the Supreme Court now must scrutinize its provisions. That’s the court’s duty.

That brings me to the second news item: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave an interview to Egyptian television. Ginsburg will likely be the next justice to step down. Once Obama replaces her with a much younger pro-Roe judge, this nation will have Roe v. Wade for another 39 years. In the interview, Ginsburg advised Middle East democrats on drafting a constitution. She did not, however, recommend the U.S. Constitution. Ginsburg stated:

I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation; and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world…. I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, and had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recently than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?

Actually, why not take advantage of what’s in the U.S. Constitution? The paradox in Ginsburg’s statement is her dismissal of the U.S. Constitution because it’s “rather old;” in fact, “the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.”

Well, why is it so old and still in force? Because it was done right. It is based on timeless values and virtues and universal rights that work; that are true. It has been amended less than 30 times in 220-some years. It is the most stable, successful, remarkable constitution in history, bringing together a vast array of peoples and assimilating them into history’s most prosperous, awe-inspiring nation—a nation that spent the 20th century winning freedom for other nations, so those nations could produce democracies and constitutions.

The U.S. Constitution is the perfect model, at once both beautifully broad and specific.
And among the things it got right are separation of powers and checks in balances. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and President Obama may be learning that again very soon—compliments of Obama-care and its constitutional assault on the consciences of religious believers.

Paul Kengor


Paul Kengor is Professor of Political Science at Grove City College, executive director of The Center for Vision & Values, and author of many books including The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor and Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage (2015). His new books are A Pope and a President and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Communism (2017).

  • Anders13

    Does this mean that the Church is finely going to recognize what our founders said to King George III when they wrote ” We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” ; they were saying to George: We have a King and He is not you.

  • Tony Wawrzynski

    While I fully sympathize with Mr. Kengor’s perspective, I don’t think he is being very realistic in claiming that the Constitution is still much in force today. Probably at least 90% of what the Federal government does violates the Constitution.  It is only invoked when doing so advances the agenda of some poltician or interest group, who otherwise could not care less about what it says.

  • Pingback: Convert Journal – Obama’s war on religion (update #2)()

  • Grimm Bros.

    “If this issue goes to the high court, I wouldn’t bet my money on Obama…”

    When this issue goes to the high court, O-bam-a can’t lose.
    The “High Court” will rule this is covered under the Commerce Clause of the “Constitution” vs. the 1st Amendment. Money is money, not religion. Catholics LOSE.

    When a sitting “justice” of the Supreme Court says our “Constitution” is no good since it’s old, she should be impeached immediately.  Her hatred of the very basis of law she supposedly is there to uphold is breathtaking! We would be better off with the Cable Guy sitting on the bench.

    A point to ponder.  The only reason the words on the paper that we call “The Constitution” have any force is because We the People MAKE the politicians in Washington, DC obey it.  Because we have sat on our behinds for 80 years and done NOTHING to stop those who chopped away and discarded the checks and balances, said and did NOTHING, “The Constitution” is dead.  Stone. Cold. Dead. It’s dead, Jim.

    Enjoy the Brave New World. It will look very similar to the Fearful Old World, the Middle Ages, with tyranny, brutality, oppression, torture, slavery standard operating procedure once again. This time around, there is NO “New World” where freedom can flourish. Game Over.

  • Sbentley

    The Oath of the President had Obama swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the U.S. It seems now that Obama is perhaps not so happy with this oath, and therefore, perhaps the job as it should be executed. 

  • Pingback: Why We Must Fight For Our Right of Religious Freedom | Why I Am Catholic()