Obama's Constitutional Flip-Flop

I find this tirade by Ann Coulter very amusing but I am not sure if she sees the full implications of the junior Senator from Illinois's stance vis-a-vis a Constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I think she is too gleeful and eager to use a sledgehammer when in this case the artistic use of a rapier might be more efficacious.

But most stunningly, when Warren asked Obama if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not "because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution."

Ann goes gleefully into hammering the Senator over the amendment banning slavery. The implications are far more troubling than what Coulter writes about. With these words, Obama is turning on its head the Democrats' mantra of the Constitution being a 'living document' that is open to creative and sometimes logically convoluted justifications for change. The Constitution becomes a document set in concrete under Obama's definition.

In fact, even the original Bill of Rights goes out the window by this reasoning. There goes the First Amendment protecting freedom of speech and religion. The Second on the right to bear arms. How about the amendment that created the IRS? Or the one granting an 18 year old the right to vote? Even Roe v. Wade would vanish because reproductive rights are nowhere found in the Constitution.

Amazing, Sen. Obama has come out more strongly as a strict constructionist than Sen. McCain has. Unfortunately this it not because Sen. Obama has had a sudden revelation, but because Sen. Obama was trying to tap-dance around a tough question without offending anyone. For such a Constitutional lawyer, Sen. Obama come across as a lightweight.