Obama Thinks Constitution Flawed Without Redistribution Of Wealth

I cannot even believe this.  First of all, I heard the fact that Obama thought the Constitution was flawed being discussed on MSNBC of all places.  Most shocking since they are his biggest media cheering section.  Even more glaring are the words that Obama uttered in a 2001 interview on Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ FM and here they are with my emphasis:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK.  But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

 And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Keep in mind that Barack Obama has been a law professor on the Constitution.  This is a document he has spent alot of time studying and yet he completely misses the point.  Our Founding Fathers said that we are indowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.  Those are automatic and the Constitution and other founding documents merely defined those rights so that the government could never take those away.  It is not a document of “negative liberties”.  The Constitution protects us from a tyrannical government.  Only someone who wants to lead a tyrannical government would say the above words.  Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the Declaration speaks of has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth.  And the courts are not meant to be radical.  Keep that in mind as you consider that Obama may get the chance to appoint three Supreme Court justices and countless local judges.  And keep in mind that the Warren Court has been the most liberal court this country ever had.

Obama’s spokesman Bill Burton had this to say, “In this interview back in 2001, Obama was talking about the civil rights movement – and the kind of work that has to be done on the ground to make sure that everyone can live out the promise of equality. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Obama’s economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut. It’s just another distraction from an increasingly desperate McCain campaign.”  It truly is amazing how gullible the Obama campaign thinks Americans are by constantly calling truth that shines the light on a Marxist Obama “distractions”.  This is everything!  The economy, the wars, abortion…none of that matters if we lose our freedom.  What an Obama presidency will change those words to is: The economy becomes redistribution of wealth, wars become Martial Law here in America with boots on our streets and terrorists able to destroy us and abortion becomes Eugenics where only the best get to live.  Liberals love to compare President Bush to Hitler.  They’ve got the wrong man.


27 responses to “Obama Thinks Constitution Flawed Without Redistribution Of Wealth

  1. goodtimepolitics

    If Obama is elected in my opinion the civil rights movement will be moved back 50 years! He will start riots on the streets of every city in America and its not going to be pretty! Its good to elect a black but not someone like Obama! I will be voting John McCain!

    • Bill Giordano

      Prescient comment from about 4 years ago. Now we have the occupy movement and BHO had to move the G8 summit out of Chicago because of the promise of another ’68 Dem Convention there. Mobs come from evil and those who gravitate to evil favor the Democrat Party (most corrupt politicians are Dems; most felons, given the right to vote, favor Dems; and the Black Panthers and ACORN favor Dems).

      • I can tell you that I have voted democrat and I am one of the most honest people out there. I return change to the cashier when given too much, I never lie, I turned in 300$ that I found outside of Jeds when it would have been possible to freely walk away with it. I believe in doing the right thing because it is the ethical and moral thing to do. I would rather someone hurt me than cause harm to another. So, tell me, how is that evil? If that is the definition of evil, I guess then I will have to accept it because i will never be willing to do harm to another, steal, lie, or anything bad and live life by a strong moral code.

  2. “The Constitution protects us from a tyrannical government. Only someone who wants to lead a tyrannical government would say the above words.”

    You’re on fire! I can’t believe it, either. Obama, if elected, will tear down everything that America is. Kiss freedom goodbye.

  3. First of all, I am not a supporter of Mr. John McCain. Altho I respect his service to his country in a war he was not allowed to win, I have no use for gigolos and adulterers.

    But this note is about Mr. Barak Obama. The readers of this forum are, no doubt, atheists, and, as a true American, I support your right to believe whatever religion you want no matter how misguided. But even atheists have absorbed some of the teachings of the Bible: “Where there is smoke there is fire”, for instance.

    It is well documented that Mr. Obama was, for many years, a member of a “Christian” church that preached racism and bigotry. It is well documented that Mr. Obama attended an islamic school in his youth and has never publicly renounced his muslim upbringing. It is well documented that Mr. Obama is versed in the godless communistic teachings of people like Bill Ayers. Recent evidence suggests Mr. Obama supports satanism. Polls show that 75% of Jews will vote for Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama professes to be from a working class upbringing, yet attended an Ivy-league college and vacations in Hawaii.

    Now I know that “multiculturalists” will claim that these are all plusses, but the average American wonders, “Who is this man, what does he really believe?” Where there is smoke there is fire.

    I will admit, Mr. Obama is a snappy dresser and an eloquent speaker, but so are P.Diddy and Kenya West. I think we would all agree that neither of those gentlemen are ready to be the next Commander-In-Chief of this great country.
    Most of you are probably too young to remember when Vanilla Ice was scorned and MC Hammer was beloved even though their music was interchangeable.

    Before you cast your vote, I urge you to think long and hard about the future of your country. The choices are not good, an American patriot adulterer or a total unknown.
    May God give you wisdom to do the right thing.

    PS: for those who would immediately “knee-jerk flame” me as a racist, I am not. I dated a colored boy in college, even though my parents forbid me to see him. He was a wonderful boy, unfortunately, like many of his people he got caught up in drugs and I left him. He still occasionally writes me from prison. I also support African children, here is a portion of a letter I recently received from one of my “kids”-

    “…with your help I will continue to be able to afford school supplies. My village was able to dig a new well with your help…”

    God Bless you all, and may He have mercy upon us in these trying times.

    • Hey dumbass, If you refer to an african american person as “colored boy” than indeed, you are an angry racist. Also, when you say “Like many of his people” it is apparent you have some stereotyped a person by color. I don’t care how much money you give to charity so you can tax deduct it at the end of the year. We all know that is the real reason behind it. And guess what? I am a white lady who never dated an african american man.

  4. “wars become Marshall Law here in America with boots on our streets”

    Thurgood Marshall law? “We Are Marshall” law?

  5. “…The economy becomes redistribution of wealth, wars become Marshall Law here in America …”

    Um, moron? It’s ‘Martial Law’.

  6. This may not be worth pointing out at this place, but Obama’s statement is actually pretty conservative and completely in line with what all kinds of Constitutional scholars agree on. To have inalienable rights is, indeed, to have rights that the government cannot step on, and the fact that the Constitution says what the state cannot do is what makes those liberties “negative.” That is basic Intro to Con Law. Then, Obama suggests that if you want to protect civil rights and foster equal opportunity, most of that has to be accomplished through the political process because the Constitution can only tell us what the limits of government are, not what its priorities should be. When you wrote “It is not a document of ‘negative liberties.’ The Constitution protects us from a tyrannical government,” it is as if you said, “It is not a document of ‘negative liberties,’ it is a document of negative liberties.'” You just don’t know how law professors describe that fact.

    And, who is Marshall? I think you meant to say martial law.

  7. OMG YES we must uphold the constitution above all. So what if it enshrines legalized slavery, it should never ever be amended, amirightguize?

  8. I’ve just been told of evidence that Obama is a satanist.

  9. “It is not a document of “negative liberties”. The Constitution protects us from a tyrannical government.”

    um, your second sentence is basically the definition of the first. are you sure you understand what you’re talking about here?

    negative rights means those rights that the government cannont interfere with or take away, in other words: “Congress shall make no law…”

    oh, and what the hell is Marshall Law?

  10. Charles Giacometti

    Thanks for this glimpse into what the mentally ill and mentally retarded are thinking these days.

  11. I can see why you would be afraid of that eugenics thing.

  12. What a wonderful display of liberalism. Everyone excoriates me for mispelling “Martial” as “Marshall” and yet leave intelligent comments such as the above. Loving freedom, the Constitution and hating Marxism is now a mental disease. Also, I stand corrected on the wording of the sentence on negative liberties. I do declare in my About Me page that I’m not an expert. I didn’t realize that negative liberties means the same as limiting document towards to government. I didn’t go to an elite university like Harvard.

  13. Midwest Mom – I’m not sure what the hell you are talking about. I’m a Christian. I can’t attest to the religious leanings of my readers, but declaring them all as obvious atheists is uninformed.

  14. Midwestmom is proof of why “average” Americans are laughed at world-wide.

  15. I didn’t go to an elite university like Harvard.

    Oh, stop crying for five minutes and learn from people who actually know what they’re talking about.

  16. TGK – I wasn’t crying about not going to Harvard. It’s obvious it was a dig towards Obama the elitist who may under stand the meaning of negative liberties (I assume when someone uses the term negative that they mean it is a bad thing.) but doesn’t understand the role of courts or that redistribution of wealth kills economies and the desire to work harder and be better.

  17. dsgawrsh said:
    “It’s obvious it was a dig towards Obama the elitist who may under stand the meaning of negative liberties (I assume when someone uses the term negative that they mean it is a bad thing.)”

    1) when you assume, you make an Ass of U and Me.
    2) what’s wrong with “elitism”? Would you rather have the smartest guy in town defend you in court, or the dumbest? Even if he’s a great guy to have a brew with?

  18. Well, Grondo, aren’t you clever? I’ve never heard that defintion of assume before – rolling my eyes. If you don’t know what is wrong with elitism then I can’t help you. Being elite has nothing to do with being smart. Most book smart people – like Obama – have no common sense.

  19. Barack Obama was commenting on the limitations of an exclusively courts-based civil rights movement. He pointed out that the Constitution is a document of negative rights (and this is a subject you might want to study a bit because you seem confused) not as a flaw in the Constitution but as a statement of Constitutional law. He then goes on to discuss why the civil rights movements should have sought other avenues of reform to redress economic disparities.

    There is a debate among legal historians about the shift in the civil rights movement after Brown to a litigation oriented movement and whether this was an effective strategy. Obama was expressing the view that litigation has its limits and that political reforms aimed at economic disparities ought to have played a larger role in the civil rights movement. See Kenneth Mack for scholarship on the subject.

    Obama at no point suggested the Constitution was flawed for not providing positive economic rights. You might want to develop at least a rudimentary understanding of what you are commenting on in the future.

  20. You know what is hilarious about these elitists who have commented here and called my understanding of the Constitution “rudimentary” is that they were quick to go over my misinterpretation of negative liberties, but didn’t bother to correct that I called Obama a law professor which he has never been. Pretty choosy about what they correct, eh? As for you Karma, you need to reread what Obama said. He touched on the litigation stuff, but he went further by claiming that “[The Warren court] didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.” I may be “uneducated” but I know that the Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the Constitution, not breaking free from constraints and making up new laws, etc. Obama also said, “[The Constitution] doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” Answer: Leave us alone to pursue our happiness. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid Karma and learn how to read.

  21. “Leave us alone to pursue our happiness.” This is what is meant by negative liberties.

    He said the Warren court didn’t break free of the limitations imposed by the Constitution as a statement of fact, not a complaint or a description of a shortcoming of the court. He did not suggest that the court ought to have broken free from those constraints, but rather that civil rights lawyers might have sought other avenues of redress.

    Obama was a senior lecturer at U. of Chicago Law. Senior lecturers are faculty members and are regarded as professors of law. Obama was a law professor. While that particular statement of yours was not incorrect, many others were. But when something is so rife with inaccuracies as your above tripe, one has to be selective when responding.

  22. Karma, I understand what negative liberties are now that you all have pounded that in my head. You have given your interpretation of what Obama meant, but my interpretation as well as that of hundreds of commentators is that Obama would have liked to go beyond the constraints set in the Constitution. We’ve watched the Supreme Court do just that many times. Roe v. Wade is one and here is another that they had to correct: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20080124.html

    As for the Obama as professor answer you gave, Slate (which is a huge Obama supporter) had this to say in their paper:

    “But what about the difference in rank or standing? There is a difference. At most schools, the term for the job Obama had is called “adjunct professor,” or sometimes “visiting assistant professor” or “clinical professor.” In one sense people with these jobs are law professors—in the sense that they profess the law. It is also true that students in the class call them “professor.” Doubtless Obama’s students called him “Professor Obama.” But on the other hand, an adjunct is not a full-time professor, though he or she might have been so once. Nor has the adjunct or visiting assistant professor or clinical professor gone through the exact same filters required to be a “tenure-track” professor. Yet they do go through some important filters. You can’t make a ham sandwich into a law professor.”

  23. The take home on the law professor point is that he knows a lot more about constitutional law than you or I do. But for the record: he was a senior lecturer which is not adjunct faculty at UChi. He was a professor according to the university’s faculty’s designation. Also, he was offered tenure and declined.

  24. I would also like to touch on your idea of redistribution of wealth. The founders viewed individuals and corporations under a different light. The Right wing is accurate is some of their ideas: Limited Federal Government and Limited Debt. However; their views of corporations having rights is completely opposite of the founders views. A laborer who works the land or a tradesman working his trade on the open market, a small privately owned/ran business (self-employed) was one thing, a person or small group of people who consolidate the wealth earned from that group and putting it into their own pockets (corporation) was not a protected class. Note these statements from Thomas Jefferson (who wanted a constitutional amendment protecting people from monopolies/coporations) and James Madison (who thought they shouldn’t be outlawed but confined strictly to their state charters).
    July 31, 1788 – The saying there shall be no monopolies, lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of fourteen years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful, to be opposed to that of their general suppression. (basically that monoplies do not provide enough benefit so they should be suppressed/outlawed)
    October 17, 1788 – With regard to monopolies, they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in Government. But is it clear that, as encouragements to literary works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public to abolish the privilege, at a price to be specified in the grant of it? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many to the few. (please notice the word “privilege”, that is how they viewed incorporating – as a privilege not a right. The people (a government by the people for the people) had a right to abolish their corporations privilege by the rules “in grant of it” (it’s charter)
    The founders didn’t just put in a federal government but instilled state and local governments as well – so to truly get the founders views we must search further than just the federal government (constitution) we must also look at what they did at the state and local levels and how they treated corporations.
    a: limited duration of 10, 20 and no more than 30 years
    b: limited amount of land a corporation could own
    c: limited amount of money and financial assets a corporation could own.
    d: limited corporations to a certain purpose (building roads or buildings)
    once that purpose was finished the corporation was dissolved.
    e: limited internal governance by giving shareholders more rights, in some
    states unanimous votes of all shareholders were required for certain
    f: states had the right to set prices in the charter after reviewing the
    corporations expenses.
    g: state’s had the right to revoke a charter at will
    This view would scare many Republican/Right Wing people today but was normal to the Founders. Not only were they fighting for Independence from England but from their form of economics. For instance the Boston Tea Party (The Rebellion against a corporation (East India Trading Company) and it’s tax free goods that put small businesses out of business. The liberals of today have grown the federal government to fix the errors caused by the conservatives in the U.S. Supreme Court that have basically newtered the state and local governments where the people were in charge of controlling these entities. If the right wing would get together with the left wing to fix these issues, i bet the left would be willing to shrink the federal government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s