Obama,US Constutution,Redistribution of Wealth,Negative Liberties

[bonnie]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79225

WND ELECTION 2008

Obama rips U.S. Constitution

Faults Supreme Court for not mandating 'redistribution of wealth'

Posted: October 27, 2008

1:46 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Seven years before Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber became a GOP campaign theme, the Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

In a newly unearthed tape, Obama is heard telling Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

(Story continues below)

In the 2001 interview, Obama said:

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.

[Joe_in_RP]

More like Fascism Doug. Its the preferred method of the beast power.

[Kountzer]

Whatever. Reagan was ace buddies with the pope, and he was as far right as you can get.

[bonnie]

Whatever. Reagan was ace buddies with the pope, and he was as far right as you can get.

That has what to do with Obama and the US Constitution??

[Kountzer]

It has about as much to do as all the hot air and idle time nothing you kicking out.

[bonnie]

It has about as much to do as all the hot air and idle time nothing you kicking out.

Now that wasn't nice. Idle time,NOPE. A business I have requires that I spend a great deal of time monitoring those machines,sitting in front of the computer

One thing I have noticed about Obama supporters is the only way they can continue to support Obama is to attack others and ignore

Obama's conduct.

Instead of supporting Obama you go after Reagan,a man out of office and dead for a couple of years.

Obama swore an oath to uphold the constitution of the US. His view of the constitution is relevant.

[Kountzer]

There have to be all sorts of watch dog apparatus, republican constitutional lawyers, etc., that keep obama from destroying the constitution. That mess you're talking about is nothing but message board hysteria.

[Kountzer]

I didn't say anything mean or disparaging about Reagan. I just said he had close ties with the Pope. History bears that out. For as long as I can remember I've been taught, and see no reason to stop believing now, that this country, America, will play a prominent, albeit dubious role in end time prophecy. I don't think it matters if the President in power is from one party, or the other. The powers who are working to bring about a One World govt have both sides covered. Reagan and bush were close to the pope, so was Clinton. So is Barack Obama, or he will be, if he wants to stay in power, or just stay period. I don't think the rush to a one rule world gov't started on Jan 21st 2009, malachi martin wrote his book in 1988. The vatican doesn't like the constitution, especially the parts guaranteeing personal freedoms. and those personal freedoms have been steadily eroding over the past 25 to 30 years.

[Key Guy]

So, if someone wants to point out a new attack by Obama on the Constitution (in this case, newly discovered), the correct response is to counter with a charge against a previous president.

This makes Obama's actions right, I suppose.

[bonnie]

There have to be all sorts of watch dog apparatus, republican constitutional lawyers, etc., that keep obama from destroying the constitution. That mess you're talking about is nothing but message board hysteria.

This message board hysteria can be found in a variety of places and all saying same.

To many watch dogs want the same thing

[bonnie]

Quote:

I didn't say anything mean or disparaging about Reagan. I just said he had close ties with the Pope. History bears that out. For as long as I can remember I've been taught, and see no reason to stop believing now, that this country, America, will play a prominent, albeit dubious role in end time prophecy. I don't think it matters if the President in power is from one party, or the other.

The party in office really doesn't matter,the actions of the party in office do.

Quote:

The powers who are working to bring about a One World govt have both sides covered. Reagan and bush were close to the pope, so was Clinton. So is Barack Obama, or he will be, if he wants to stay in power, or just stay period. I don't think the rush to a one rule world gov't started on Jan 21st 2009, malachi martin wrote his book in 1988. The vatican doesn't like the constitution, especially the parts guaranteeing personal freedoms. and those personal freedoms have been steadily eroding over the past 25 to 30 years.

I doubt if Bush and Clinton have much covered at this point and I know for a fact that Reagan doesn't have anything covered.

The pope did not bring Obama to power.

But again,you and all his supporters can not address anything without the "well what about Bush,now Clinton and Reagan"

It has to be patently obvious to most that can read the direction that Obama is taking in "his hope and change" but it is safer to find fault with others to absolve Obama than to fault Obama

[carolaa]

So, if someone wants to point out a new attack by Obama on the Constitution (in this case, newly discovered), the correct response is to counter with a charge against a previous president.

This makes Obama's actions right, I suppose.

It does not necessarily make them right, but it puts it in context and presents a fuller picture. Yes, what Obama does now is relevant, but history is also relevant.

[bonnie]

Quote:

It does not necessarily make them right, but it puts it in context and presents a fuller picture. Yes, what Obama does now is relevant, but history is also relevant.

How is history relevant concerning Obama and his disregard for the constitution that he swore an oath to uphold.

The "not necessarily right" tells it's own story.

Obama's actions cannot be looked at for what they are nor condemned. His actions must first be weighed against any action that Bush took as president.

Obama is the first president in a very long time that has targeted a innocent group of citizens. Did so while acting out the lie that he was shocked,yet he knew all along. A president willing to do so with the nut jobs threatening innocent men.

The response here was one delight that those vulgar rich got theirs. "Way to go Mr. President"

Please explain to me if you can,Bravus can't and neither could Neil what you think of the situation with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Same scenerio,this was brought to it's knees to a great extent because of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Barney Frank live in companion raked in a bundle from there. Conflict of interest on Barneys part??

210 million dollars paid in retention bonuses. Nary a whimper.

Why?

What is relevant here is the actions and motives of all concerned,the delight everyone took for the AIG employees and retention bonuses and the silent approval a scant couple of weeks later for the other.

What upset you about Bush,if I remember correctly you and others were adament about Bush going against the constitution and claiming he lied.

To me the relevance here would be if lying politicians make you angry then you should have been at Obama.

A lie is a lie no matter who is telling it or who has told one before

[bonnie]

If most believe in or think end time events highly probable how can this be glossed over.

Whether soon as we would measure soon,whether there is any credible conspiracy theories.Regardless of what Reagan, Clinton, and Bush did,how does that lessen or make less important the actions of Obama.

Maybe most no longer believe in the role the US will play in end time events. That is the only way any of this makes sense.

[Bravus]

Consider the source. World Net Daily. No need to read past the byline.

[Woody]

You don't like anything fair and balanced do you Bravus?

[bonnie]

You don't like anything fair and balanced do you Bravus?

It is several places. There is more than one incident of Obama and the constitution

[Bravus]

Dunno, show me something fair and balanced and I'll tell ya.

[carolaa]

Regardless of what Reagan, Clinton, and Bush did,how does that lessen or make less important the actions of Obama.

I don't like lying or going against the Constitution, no matter who does it. You will not see me sticking up for Obama or anyone who does that stuff. But I find it highly hypocritical of certain people who criticize Obama for doing the very things or similar things that Bush did and they did not criticize Bush for them, and they say things like let's let the past be the past, etc. I can't take those kinds of people seriously. Not saying you're one of those people, but that's why I feel it is not irrelevant to bring Bush and/or other past Presidents into some of these discussions.

Bush should be held accountable for the things he did. If he is not, then the President is above the law, and how can we hold Obama or any future President accountable for what they do?

[bonnie]

Quote:

I don't like lying or going against the Constitution, no matter who does it. You will not see me sticking up for Obama or anyone who does that stuff. But I find it highly hypocritical of certain people who criticize Obama for doing the very things or similar things that Bush did and they did not criticize Bush for them, and they say things like let's let the past be the past, etc. I can't take those kinds of people seriously. Not saying you're one of those people, but that's why I feel it is not irrelevant to bring Bush and/or other past Presidents into some of these discussions.

Bush should be held accountable for the things he did. If he is not, then the President is above the law, and how can we hold Obama or any future President accountable for what they do?

I didn't have much invested in Bush and I really don't in Obama.

Whatever you are referring to with Bush I don't know. I had an interest in Iraq for personal reasons and was glad for his stance on abortion. That was about it

Obama alone is responsible for his own actions.