Give me a Constitutional law prof any day

Sarah Palin sure knows how to deliver a speech, but are we willing to look at the content embedded in her rousing delivery?

Palin may be no Dick Cheney in that she's less likely to be a behind-the-scenes puppetmaster than he has been for the past eight years, but Palin does pull McCain toward the dark side in several ways.

I focused in on two things Palin said. First, she mocked Barack Obama for wanting to read terror detainees their rights. She had quite a lighthearted take on the fact that Bush-Cheney have been willing to make an unconstitutional grab for power, and have wanted to deny detainees basic legal rights including habeas corpus, a foundation of English Common Law even older than the U. S. Constitution. Palin may be eager to dehumanize detainees, but what would she say to the more than 400 men who were released from Guantanamo without being charged, often after years of detention?

Habeas corpus may sound like an arcane legal principle, but I encourage you to listen to the award-winning episode of This American Life, "Habeas Schmabeas 2007," that explains it really skillfully--what it is and why it matters to all of us.

Palin's attitude in her speech last night ties in with disturbing recent development of McCain voting in favor of waterboarding, the interrogation procedure that most people agree is torture. McCain was the last person most people thought would approve the use of torture, but it looks like we can't count on that.

(Another show to listen to: the Fresh Air interview with investigative journalist Jane Mayer, author of The Dark Side who explains that the U. S. harsh interrogation techniques were derived from outdated tortuous interrogation methods originally designed primarily to extract FALSE confessions from prisoners.)

Second, Palin slammed Obama for not using the word "victory" when talking about the Iraq War. You know who else doesn't use the word victory when talking about the war? General David Petraus, who is in charge of the whole U. S. military action. Personally, I respect Petraeus, whom I believe is doing his best to find resolution to the tragic, incredibly complex situation that has resulted from the U. S. invasion of Iraq. Steve Coll discusses "The General's Dilemma" in his profile of Petraus in the September 8 issue of The New Yorker.

I would hope that most thinking people would realize by now that ending the conflict in Iraq is not about declaring victory. You can't win an occupation.

I happen to think that Barack Obama is an extraordinary candidate, but even if he was just okay, I'd support him because of his expertise as a Constitutional Law professor. After the past eight years, it would be a welcome relief to have a President who respects the Constitution, rather than constantly trying to find ways to undermine it.

Mommy explains Constitutional law

Moms are put on the spot to answer all of the Great Questions sooner or later. My daughter is 7 years old and I have already been asked, "Is Jesus real?" "Where do babies come from?" and "When you are eating a chicken leg, are you eating a CHICKEN'S LEG?"


Today I was thrust into a discussion that required me to explain our Constitution. Like many great conversations, this one took place in the car. We had picked up our dog from his vacation stay at the kennel and were driving home, when we got on the topic of groups of kids not wanting to play with each other. Neither she or I remembers exactly how we got started on this, but we ended up talking about the fact that white children and black children used to be segregated in different schools. I pointed out that things had been this way here in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and if we had lived here 60 years ago we would have had to work toward making the system more fair.

She asked: "Would you have given money to the black schools to make them better?"

I replied that I would have put my money and effort into getting the system changed.

I told her that after a lot of work from brave people, the law was finally changed to require children to attend school together.

She asked, "Did people vote to change it?" This was an amazing question because it required me to explain that no, if they had had a vote, most people probably would have voted to keep schools separate. But the way our government is set up, we have a Constitution whose principles are even more powerful than a vote. When the Supreme Court decided that the law keeping children in segregated schools was unconstitutional, the law had to be changed, no matter how people voted.

It's easy to be cyncical about our government today, but explaining the system to my child, I was pretty darn proud of our core principles. I think we have a wonderful government structure, if we will just insist that the separation of powers be honored and the Constitution be strictly and vigorously upheld.

Age 7 has its challenges but it is also magical and inspiring to be able to engage in real dialogue with my daughter. The questions she asks really get me thinking and our conversations are learning opportunities for both of us. I grew up in the North, where segregation is more book history than local history, and the fight for civil rights always seemed distant, like a grainy black-and-white documentary newsreel. The fact of segregation hit me in a new way, explaining to my girl that there had been separate schools right here in the only home town she has ever known.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on what was the most challenging question your child has ever asked you, and how old was your child when he or she posed it?