And he's a Constitutional law expert?

[grasswire]

I heard President Obama say the following:

"If you obey the law, it will protect you."

This is precisely the OPPOSITE of the brilliance of our Constitution. The brilliance is that if you BREAK the law, it will protect you.

Here is why this is so sinister an interpretation (although I don't believe he meant it to be sinister): Let's imagine an America where the law only protects those who obey it, and let's imagine that dissent is criminalized. Or some facet of free speech. Let's imagine those who engage in disobedience, who protest in ways that disrupt.

"If you obey the law, it will protect you."

Who wrote this sentence in the speech? It should scare the bejabbers out of us all.

[grasswire]

1. I should note that...

....aside from this faux pas, I thought he did an excellent job. Especially when he called out the SCOTUS.

[hlthe2b]

2. I think it was written by someone who wasn't a constitutional lawyer

and probably slipped by given how much line by line picking surely must have occurred. Yes, I agree with you. But, I think most people would not take the time to really think about it. It was probably meant to be a "throw away" line. But, again, I agree with you.

[Enrique]

3. Obama broke the law when he used cocaine

and he still has all his rights. I noticed that line too.

[grasswire]

5. I'm glad I was not the only one to catch it.

But I can't really understand how someone in the WH would not see the sinister implications in it.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

23. The White House didn't catch it....

because there was nothing to catch. Taken in context, there's nothing even remotely sinister about what he said. And beyond that, it's a rhetorical flousish in a political speech; this is not a legal opinion.

Jesus Christ, what's next with you people? What about his tie. Didn't you just HATE his tie?!

[ProSense]

6. WTF? n/t

[ProSense]

4. Reading is fundamental

Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

People just search for things to pick at without understanding what the hell they're talking about.

[grasswire]

10. the criticism is still valid

If you break the law you should be protected by it. That is the promise of the Constitution.

[Solomon]

18. Both apply idiot. He didn't say that you WOULDN'T be

protected if you broke the law.

Sheesh. What a maroon.

[fishwax]

22. no, the criticism is not valid

Obama saying that "those who abide by the law should be protected by it" doesn't mean that the law doesn't protect those who break it.

Using that logic, your claim in the OP that "The brilliance is that if you BREAK the law, it will protect you" would mean that the law doesn't protect those who *don't* break it. (Let's imagine an America where the law only protects those who disobey it ... that's pretty scary too.)

[boppers]

7. Context is everything.

The law doesn't protect non-citizens equally.

[frazzled]

8. Don't take it out of context or anything: this was in reference to undocumented people

(illegal immigrants, for the rest of you).

It was meant to convey: unless you break the law, you will not be thrown into indefinite detention and no-recourse deportation.

[Cha]

15. That's all they have is to take somehing

out of context and screw around with it.

[fishwax]

9. well, if you break the law you can be punished

even when engaging in civil disobedience or disruptive protest. Yes, there are protections even for those who break the law (from cruel and unusual punishment, etc.), but I don't see that conflicting with the comment that "if you abide by the law you should be protected by it." As for the line itself, it was specifically in reference to protection from discrimination.

[grasswire]

11. uh...........

...the protections are more than from cruel and unusual punishment. They include bedrock principles that stand between a citizen and tyranny. Due process, rules of evidence, the right to face your accuser, yada yada yada.

[fishwax]

14. yeah, I know

and more, conveniently covered by the "etc." :) :shrug:

[Vattel]

19. those rights are intended to protect the innocent,

not the guilty.

[fishwax]

21. both, actually -- they're there to protect the accused without respect to guilt

[eleny]

12. I thought of O'Keefe

He tweeted that the truth will set him free. So I linked the two tonight. But that's just me.

Btw, the Scotus admonition made me do a double take. It was a highlight when that bunch had to take it on the chin. Since it never happened before in a SOTU I thought it was a terrific uppercut to those five snots.

:hi:

[johnaries]

13. Either you forgot the "sarcasm" icon,

or you are posting on the wrong site.

[pnwmom]

16. What would have scared me is if he had said,

"If you break the law, it will protect you."

Because the vast majority of Americans would have taken that to mean "it will protect you from any consequences of your action."

And I would wonder whether he'd gone completely tone deaf.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. They call this "grasping at straws."

They also call it "circling the drain."

[Solomon]

20. Whatever they call it, it needs to be flushed.

Bring out the air spray.

[Peacetrain]

24. Yes he is.. and the speech in context shows how cherry picking out of context is

a disaster.. honestly, do you have any idea how foolish this looks..if you can, you might want to do some editing.. just saying..not picking on you..