Or does she kill babies and eat puppies?  It does not matter since neither is true.  However, we all know she really wants to so it is okay for me to say so.  That is Geller's reasoning why she stands behind her report and outrage over Obama's false Colombia thesis where the faux-author claimed that the Constitution does not protect economic freedom.  (Ex-drug addict Rush Limbaugh fell for the same hoax.)  Still, she manages to defend herself, rather weakly:

That sounded to me like something Obama would have said, so I cited it and ran it with it at my blog AtlasShrugs.com. But when I couldn’t find the actual link to what purported to be the “first ten pages” of Obama’s thesis, I took it down.

 But bear in mind one thing: as Michael Ledeen says, “it worked because it’s plausible.”

It worked because idiots like Geller and Limbaugh, among others, fell for it.  It worked because there is such stupidity coming out of the "conservative" movement that they would fall for anything without fact checking.  It worked because it proved how intellectually bankrupt and the lack of integrity these people have.  So, it has been a success.  But, not for the reasons these "conservatives" believe.

Geller then goes on and explains how Obama really believes in the redistribution of wealth because he said, during an intellectual discussion (something foreign to "conservatives"), that the Warren Court really was not radical because it did not redistribute wealth because the Supreme Court is not the institution that is equipped to do so.  Doesn't that make Obama correct?  And, how does it square with the faux-claim that the Constitution does not guarantee with economic freedom?

Instead of making false claims and ridiculous arguments, why does Geller not use her lack of talent to explain how the faux-thesis is wrong?  So, Ms. Geller, does the Constitution guarantee "economic freedom" and what does "economic freedom" mean?  Are laws that prohibit the trade of drugs violate one's "economic freedom"?  Do prostitution laws violate "economic freedom"?  How about overtime pay?  OSHA requirements? 

Truth is, the Constitution does not guarantee "economic freedom" as we commonly understand the term.  It is important to quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Lochner v. New York, which is the commonly held belief, and I believe to be the correct one, today:

This case is decided upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain. If it were a question whether I agreed with that theory, I should desire to study it further and long before making up my mind. But I do not conceive that to be my duty, because I strongly believe that my agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with the right of a majority to embody their opinions in law. It is settled by various decisions of this court that state constitutions and state laws may regulate life in many ways which we as legislators might think as injudicious, or if you like as tyrannical, as this, and which, equally with this, interfere with the liberty to contract. Sunday laws and usury laws are ancient examples. A more modern one is the prohibition of lotteries. The liberty of the citizen to do as he likes so long as he does not interfere with the liberty of others to do the same, which has been a shibboleth for some well-known writers, is interfered with by school laws, by the Postoffice, by every state or municipal institution which takes his money for purposes thought desirable, whether he likes it or not. The 14th Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics. The other day we sustained the Massachusetts vaccination law.   United States and state statutes and decisions cutting down the liberty to contract by way of combination are familiar to this court.  Two years ago we upheld the prohibition of sales of stock on margins, or for future delivery, in the Constitution of California. The decision sustaining an eight-hour law for miners is still recent.  Some of these laws embody convictions or prejudices which judges are likely to share. Some may not. But a Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the state or of laissez faire.  It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel, and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

The emphasis is mine.  I challenge Geller, Limbaugh and any other so called "conservative" to define for me and for America what exactly is "economic freedom" and where it is in the Constitution.  The fact that our founders believed in "economic freedom" is meaningless unless it is in the Constitution.

Even though the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right of "life, liberty, and property, without due process of law" this is more of a criminal dictat.  Further, due process, in my opinion, is more of a procedural issue.  So, tell me, anyone, what exactly is "economic freedom" and where is it in our Constitution?  Come on, use those drop out skills here.