Given the context of the beginning of public impeachment inquiries led by Rep. Adam Schiff, a speech to explain and defend the presidency as embodied in an originalist interpretation of Article II of the U.S. Constitution was bound to raise the hackles of those opposed to the current occupant of that office. Yet just a casual understanding of the concepts explored by Attorney General Barr will serve to dispel most, if not all, concerns as raised by those who have failed to separate the office of the presidency from the man. It also helps one's comprehension if one does not seek to invent novel distortions of his statements.
In the interest of education, below are links to articles about and by individuals and groups criticizing the speech:
- Expecting friendly fire? Aside from showing a completely inadequate understanding of the topic about which he was writing, the reporter fails to impress with his name-dropping.
- Raising a dubious distinction? This professor of history is more than a little nit-picky.
- Unhinged much? Some of these criticisms beg the question, "Did you really listen to the speech or did you manage to doze off somewhere in the middle only to wake up in time for the final standing ovation?"
- Hewing the middle course? This reporter at least attempts to stay out of the story.
- Creative law writing? Only a professor teaching both constitutional law and creative writing could come up with this mess.
Be sure to listen carefully to the speech (or even follow along with the prepared text) before reading any of the above so that you are prepared to see how wrong each of the critics is and where they went so wrong.