Is "Constitutional Scholar" Obama really just a "Graffiti Vandal?"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Constitution_We_the_People.jpg

Some say Obama broke a law when he made a fund-raising video in the White House "Map Room."
"The White House contends that the video is legal, noting that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a memo in 1979 explaining that the president can solicit funds in the White House, so long as he does so in the residential portion of the mansion, not in a room used for official business.

However, Hans von Spakovsky – former member of the Federal Election Commission and a Heritage Foundation legal analyst – told CNSNews.com that that exemption may not apply in this case because it appears that the video was not filmed in an area where the president actually lives."

Read more HERE

Is this "minor" violation of OUR LAWS really unimportant?  Is Obama, as role model, really serving our country by demonstrating such a lackadaisical attitude toward respect for ALL LAWS?  Is it reasonable to assume that committing lesser offenses eventually leads to a general diminishment of respect for the law - as in the "Broken Window Theory?"  

"... disorder and crime are usually inextricably linked, in a kind of developmental sequence. Social psychologists and police officers tend to agree that if a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken. This is as true in nice neighborhoods as in rundown ones. ...

Philip Zimbardo, a Stanford psychologist, reported in 1969 on some experiments testing the broken-window theory. He arranged to have an automobile without license plates parked with its hood up on a street in the Bronx and a comparable automobile on a street in Palo Alto, California. The car in the Bronx was attacked by "vandals" within ten minutes of its "abandonment." The first to arrive were a family—father, mother, and young son—who removed the radiator and battery. Within twenty-four hours, virtually everything of value had been removed. Then random destruction began—windows were smashed, parts torn off, upholstery ripped. Children began to use the car as a playground. Most of the adult "vandals" were well-dressed, apparently clean-cut whites. The car in Palo Alto sat untouched for more than a week. Then Zimbardo smashed part of it with a sledgehammer. Soon, passersby were joining in. Within a few hours, the car had been turned upside down and utterly destroyed. Again, the "vandals" appeared to be primarily respectable whites."----------

Obama's disrespect for OUR RULE OF LAW - sets the example for others to follow.  When called on his trespasses - we are bombarded with excuses - one is on "interpretation" - as if the Constitution is just too complicated for "us" - you know - the "mushroom masses" to understand.  In fact - we are asked to believe that it's too complicated for our elected representatives to bother with - but I beg to differ - so does Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas:

The following is an excerpt from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's Wriston Lecture to the Manhattan Institute last Thursday:

"As I have traveled across the country, I have been astounded just how many of our fellow citizens feel strongly about their constitutional rights but have no idea what they are, or for that matter, what the Constitution says. I am not suggesting that they become Constitutional scholars -- whatever that means. I am suggesting, however, that if one feels strongly about his or her rights, it does make sense to know generally what the Constitution says about them. It is at least as easy to understand as a cell phone contract -- and vastly more important."

 Why,indeed, would a "Constitutional Scholar" need "legal counsel" to provide an interpretation of the law?  Perhaps it provides a skirt to hide behind when pesky legal questions come up. 

I've been living with the impression that details like "dotting I's and crossing T's" mattered when legal matters were involved.  I thought definitions - like the meaning of what the word "is" is.  But now I'm starting to wonder if I've had it wrong all along - that details don't matter.  Heck - now that I'm thinking about it - forget the details - the law itself doesn't matter anymore.  

When I say "any more" I mean - since the election campaign.  It appears that during an election campaign - the law can be cited to attack an opponent so as to win the office - then later - the very same laws that would limit the new president's power - are "unimportant" - "irrelevant" - "politically motivated carping" - and are to be dismissed.  Pay special attention to time=2:13 in the following video showing the "legal scholar" pontificating about the dangers of .....well... what he is presently doing:

OUR LAWS ARE FOR EVERYONE TO FOLLOW - NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW - AND THE CONSTITUTION WAS INTENTIONALLY WRITTEN IN CLEAR CONCISE LANGUAGE SO THAT WE THE PEOPLE, WOULD KNOW FOR OURSELVES WHEN IT IS TIME TO CHAIN DOWN A BEASTLY GOVERNMENT.