I had to cringe during a particularly elitist remark that left Obama’s mouth during his rteary town-hall on gun control; “I believe in the Second Amendment. It is there, written on the paper. It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around — I taught constitutional law, I know a little bit about this — I get it.”Well, a colleague of Obama’s at the University of Chicago, economist John Lott quoted Obama as having told him that he doesn’t believe that people should be able to own guns when the two worked together in the 1990s. So the belief in the Second Amendment is questionable, but lets turn to his second claim, that he taught constitutional law.
As Karin McQuillan at the American Thinker writes, that claim is deceptive:Obama was never a professor; he was a lecturer. He did not have the qualifications to be a professor. Obama never published a single law paper. He was hired by the University of Chicago when they learned he had been given a book contract on race and law directly after graduating from Harvard. There was no book – just the contract, which he later reneged on. This is not the normal level of accomplishment for a University of Chicago professor or even lecturer.
So what did he teach at UChicago?
Obama did not specialize in the Constitution. Obama cared about and taught only one subject: race. One course was about race in the Constitution. It is on this flimsy basis that he attempts to pawn himself off as a constitutional scholar.As the New York Times explains, Obama the lecturer taught three subjects only: “race, rights and gender.”
His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. …His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law…
Referring to himself as a professor of constitutional law is overstating his credentials a bit. Not like we should expect anything else from the man who calls himself the most fiscally conservative president in more than half a century. [Note: This post was authored by The Analytical Economist]