What the Founding Fathers created has served this country admirably, even though it has been subject to interpretation and re-interpretation over the past two centuries plus.

**************************************************​ *************

All of you must know by now how resolute I am in support of Barack Obama's candidacy. I was accused once of being capable of justifying the hypothetical discovery of Obama in bed with a dead choirboy. An exaggeration, to be sure, but nothing like that has happened or is going to happen, so let's get serious.

*********************************

Obama is being hammered by the left and by the right, by formerly steadfast supporters such as Keith Olbermann, for heaven's sake, for abandoning not only his own principles (shared by his fans) but also the Constitution.

And I respectfully disagree with the hammerers. Let's take the three amendments listed above, one at a time.

The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What the first sixteen words mean to me is that the State cannot declare any particular religion to be the "official" religion of our country, that the People can worship at the shrine of their choice, and that they are free to not worship anywhere, if they so choose.

Now I'll admit. You start muddying the waters a bit when tax dollars collected by the Government start getting used to support religious institutions. But first of all, the First Amendment says nothing about that, and second of all, opening the government coffers in aid of charities sponsored by faith-based organizations isn't even, per se, support of the churches, synagogues, and mosques themselves. It would be support of charitable activities, nothing else.

I know all about cans of worms, and slippery slopes, and about the low approval rating of Congress and about the right-wing orientation of certain members of our Supreme Court.

And I've admitted previously -- in spoken conversations and in comments around Xanga -- that Obama's proposal for government support of faith-based initiatives is not my favorite thing that he's ever said. And if Constitutional scholars, whether credentialed or not, want to argue about constitutionality, I'm not qualified to argue back.

But I CAN say, leave Obama the hell alone. He taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago for ten years, and if you read the chapter in "The Audacity of Hope" that deals with our Constitution, you'll come away with the understanding that HE understands our Constitution, even if you don't.

We supporters are supposed to have his back. We're entitled -- more than entitled, we are urged -- to express our counter-opinions and he listens to us. And Obama is a big enough man to have said he's willing to take his lumps on this and other subjects. So we are free to abandon our candidate.

But I think that's just stupid. Especially when he hasn't said anything wrong. Just arguable.

The Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Here, Obama is being hammered for agreeing with a Supreme Court decision that I think sounds perfectly right. Though we can't be sure, I think (and the Court thinks, and Obama thinks) that the Founding Fathers intended for citizens to be allowed to arm themselves, to protect themselves from encroachment.

I DON'T think that the Founding Fathers would be pleased to see this amendment used as justification for irresponsible firearm usage and possession, and Obama makes perfectly good sense when he observes that the recent Supreme Court ruling offers "guidance" about how far we can go, and how far we can't go, in the difficult area of gun control.

The reason we "can't be sure" is that the Second Amendment is first of all almost ungrammatical, and second of all too many terms are undefined. Well regulated. Militia. Necessary. Security. Free. Right. Arms. Infringed.

Are people free to join a militia, and thus be well-regulated and bear arms? And is that all? Ambiguities abound throughout the Constitution. There is no way around that, and that is why we have a Supreme Court. Of course, the President is supposed to act responsibly in appointing members to that Court, and Congress is supposed to act responsibly in ratifying such appointments, but that is another matter altogether.

But my point continues to be: idealistic voters who have embraced Obama because of his liberal orientation need to understand that Obama intends to be President of ALL the people, not just the leftwing idealists who adore him. There are reasons why these issues are controversial. If they were simple, they wouldn't be controversial.

So I implore those of you who have been supporting Obama. Do not abandon him over this. We are supposed to have his back. Not stab him in the back. Disagree, fine. Try to change his mind, fine. But abandon not.

The Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This one's a lot more problematical for me, but I'm staying with the guy who brought me to this dance. He promised last year to filibuster if FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), the bill that is before Congress, includes a provision for retroactive immunity for the telecommunication companies that have been spying on our phone calls and emails.

I understand this Amendment, and its reason for being. And I understand the outrage. I also understand that President Bush has already violated this Amendment, and that the bill before Congress, if unamended, will continue to license reprehensible acts.

What I don't understand is the rationale of people who dispute Obama's contention that the provision for Attorney General review of wiretapping practices will be sufficient to correct the abuses that have occurred and that might occur in the future. The immunity provision deals only with civil suits. That's my understanding. And given the paranoia that has engulfed this country since 9/ll/01, and despite the sacrosanctity of civil liberties, and given that Obama feels some kind of bill is necessary (I don't understand why it is, because the old 1978 law would be in effect if the current act isn't renewed; I confess ignorance on this subject), I still think it's an overreaction to literally intend to not vote for Obama as a result of his position on all of this. Criminal prosecutions will still be possible, and Obama has vowed to carefully examine the reviews that will be conducted by his Attorney General.

Why is that not enough?

Why do I feel that I have to single-handedly rescue this candidacy from the brink of failure?