If I could go back in time, there is one group of people that I wish I wouldn't have been so quick to dismiss...those who expressed dismay over what they perceived as George W. Bush using his presidential power to trample the Constitution.  I might not have ended up agreeing with all of their accusations, but I know my predisposition towards liking the guy caused me to discount their charges without always giving them fair thought.

Obviously there were those on the far left who made it difficult to do so.  You can only watch Keith Olbermann froth at the mouth so many times while pompously condemning the Commander-in-Chief of "urinating on the Constitution" before you begin to build up a tolerance to such reckless hyperbole.  But there were others whose case against Bush was rooted in logic and experience.  They cautiously questioned the wisdom of urgently enacting a monstrous bill (the Patriot Act) that few Congressmen had time to even read.  They cautioned that it could limit constitutionally protected liberty, even though it was done with the best of intentions (sound familiar?).  Regardless of whether they were right or wrong, their objections deserved to be addressed.

One of those who voiced opposition to Bush's behavior was Barack Obama, who wisely crafted his campaign on the platform of undoing those supposed missteps.  He promised a presidency that would see the United States return to constitutional fidelity, ending the practice of renditions, enhanced interrogations, and wiretapping, as well as reinstate our trampled civil liberties and the sacrosanct writ of habeas corpus (this provision allows for the criminally detained to be brought before a judge rather than being held indefinitely without charge).

But besides the fact that President Obama has left virtually every single one of those Bush-era practices firmly in place, his actions reveal a governing philosophy that appears to be belligerently rebellious to the legal restraints put on him by the Constitution.  This is either the result of blissful ignorance of those limitations, or willful betrayal. 

Take for instance the President's reaction to the recent British Petroleum oil spill.  In an effort to save face politically, President Obama issued a statement saying that he, "strongly supports efforts on Capitol Hill to raise the Oil Pollution Act damages cap significantly above $75 million."  So even though at the time of the accident the law required companies like BP to be financially responsible up to a specified amount, Obama has arbitrarily decided that BP should pay more, and is therefore urging Congress to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Whatever your feelings may be about the President, BP Oil, or environmental protection, there is no escaping the reality that such a move by Obama is blatantly unconstitutional.  Article I, section 9 of the Constitution explicitly forbids Congress from passing what are called "ex post facto" (after the fact) laws.  That is to say, you can't enforce punishments or penalties against a person or a company that weren't already on the books when they committed the act.   Our Founders regarded such governmental action as abusive and authoritarian.  Our current president sees it as sound policy.

Moreover,  consider that when Obama and others accused President Bush of unlawfully suspending the "rights of the accused" to terrorist detainees on the battlefield, Bush correctly pointed out that these thugs were not American citizens or lawful residents, and therefore not technically entitled to constitutional protections.  The left pilloried Bush for such a defense, accusing him of betraying America's longstanding ideals.  Obama himself scolded, "We must adhere to our values as diligently as we protect our safety with no exceptions."  In other words, according to President Obama, we should extend constitutional protections to our sworn blood enemies who seek to bring this civilization to its knees. 

And yet that same President is encouraging Congress to deliberately deny constitutional protections to companies like BP who, as Mark Finklestein points out, "have supplied untold quantities of energy resources to the American economy and paid out billions in wages and supply purchases to American workers and firms."

Extra-constitutional protections for those that want to kill us...denial of explicit constitutional protections for companies that are critical pieces in our economy...and this from a former constitutional law professor?

I do regret not giving more credibility to those who questioned the constitutionality of some of George Bush's actions as president.  But if those same folks aren't even more up in arms about the flagrant abuse our current president is inflicting on the Constitution, they never deserved it in the first place.