She said, in response to a caller who was citing the constitution, that she doesn't get her freedoms from the constitution.
Neither does anyone else, as the male host more or less pointed out.
Obviously, the American experiment in freedom has been a massive failure. We now know that no government can be restrained by a piece of paper.
However, the founders (some of them, at least) believed at the time that the government they were setting up was to protect liberties. The constitution, and more specifically the Bill of Rights, does not grant freedoms as Michelle seems to think. If you actually read it, it was supposed to be a restriction on the government's powers. As a Supreme Court case stated some 30 years ago, the B of R is a "charter of negative liberties."
"Congress shall make no law . . . "
"Shall not be infringed . . . "
"The right of the people to be secure . . . "
etc., etc.
It does not grant freedoms, but instead orders the government to recognize -- and not infringe upon -- those inherent freedoms.
If one reads the writing of the founders, they believed that rights, endowed by our Creator, apply to ALL HUMAN BEINGS, regardless of where they happened to be born. All humans were entitled to be free, but some men (governments) would interfere with those rights, and America was to be a place to escape to where government would protect those rights.
As we now know it didn't work in practice, but the ideas were sound. The constitution does not grant rights, as anyone knows who has actually read it.