How can someone study constitutional law and come out so ignorant of the purpose of the Constitution? ?

Well, I'd rather have a president who thinks that the Constitution is flawed in that it doesn't provide for social justice, than a president who disregards all parts of the Constitution (spying on american citizens without warrants, holding people captive with no access to the charges or evidence against them, or even a lawyer...) and says of our Constitution - and I quote - "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, Its just a godd*amned piece of paper!"

And Obama never claimed out Constitution to be "wrong" - only "flawed" - as noted above - insomuch as lack of social provisions (i.e. it was unable to prevent slavery for example.)

But I'm wondering - did Bush's lack of respect for our Constitution cause you any pause?

first we need a source for this quote.

But why do you find it hard to even entertain the notion that is imperfect. Many of the legal issues we have before the Supreme Court deal with the fact that Constituion is so vague on so many matters, and then you have attorneys arguing about intent of the writers, since their is so much room for interpretation.

For instance, the 2nd Ammendment does not literally say that every private citizen has the right to bear arms. It never lilterally spells it out, and it has been a contentius issue for quite some time.

The very fact that he studied Constitutional law gives him much more insight into these various cases that have been tried before the Supreme Court, and the imperfections in the Constitution, that one can not read a defintive conclusion in much of anything.

Not to mention, the fact, that a document drafted over 200 years ago could never foresee the unique dillemas in a modern world.

I mean, the Constitution didn't intitially outlaw slavery did it?

Any time we have to make an Ammendment, we are admitting that it needs work.

IT is a document written by men, and thus by definition, it is imperfect./

Can you supply an example?