Breaking Free Of The Constraints Placed By The Founding Fathers
October 28, 2008 4:48pm CST
Well even though Barack Obama is the Constitutional law professor, a quote like this just proves I have more understanding of the Constitution than our professor does. In Obama’s America, we will finally be able to break free of the “constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution” and in so doing, achieve social justice through redistributive change. Before I am accused of taken the One out of context here is everything 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 as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. 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 its been interpreted and 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, um, 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.
28 Oct 08
What was wrong with the civil rights movement is that it did not stop at blacks being able to eat where only the whites ate, or sit on the buses where only the whites were allowed, but it decided that the whites should pay for the sins of the slave owners, even though many of them were not descended from them, and some were descended from the sharecroppers and poor whites or came from Europe. Look at the shows in television, who is the boss? Who is in charge? It is the African -American? Instead of making them equal and giving them equal opportunity, television drama has made them the artibrator of morality, the ones to which those non-black must bow. I remember Billie Jack movies and there were not that many of them, and that show where a Native American was a sheriff in Kansas. That was not that that long ago. There was also a futuristic show that showed what would happen if the television ideal of the AFrican Americans were the bosses, and the whites were second class. That did not last. OH and in real life, does this happen? No way. In real life, unless the governnment interferes and say you have to give African Americans, women, the handicapped, or whatever top positions in spite of their ability, the top jobs goes to the ones who are suited for the job, who have the ability in spite of their race or color. As for distribution of wealth, it is just as bad as distribution of power and it does not reflect reality===unless you live in Communist countries.
• United States
28 Oct 08
I heard this speech of 0bama's to which you refer. Actually, to anyone who understands what 0bama is saying, 0bama is not fit to be even a Senator, much less President. 0bama can not honestly swear an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution. That is required of both a Senator and a President. Heck, it is required of even the lowest government employee of all levels of government in the USA. 0bama does not even qualify to be a municipal dog catcher.
• United States
29 Oct 08
What 0bama and those like him keep forgetting is that our country was founded on the premise of individual rights and liberties with no government intrusion on those rights. We are all guaranteed to right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is nothing that guarantees anyone will be happy, and there in nothing that authorizes Congress or 0bama to take money from some and give it to someone else. That is usually called a crime when individuals do it, and since taxes are not voluntary, but extracted under the threat of prison and backed by armed IRS agents. For 0bama to advocate the forced redistribution of wealth is in essence advocating armed robbery of those who have achieved the American Dream in favor of those who for whatever reason did not. This is not the philosophy our country was based on, and is the hallmark of socialism, which is merely a less objectionable term then the communism that it actually is. 0bama is out to destroy America as we know it, despite the fact that he benefited from that system that he now denounces. He calls the basis of our laws to be flawed, the Constitution is the law that specifically limits the authority of the government, and he opposes it. He uses class warfare which is the hallmark of the communist themes who always claim to be for the working class, until such time as they come into power and begin dictating to the people. There are plenty of people who want the free lunch that they don't realize that it is a trap which can only lead to government dependence and the loss of our freedom. The only thing 0bama offers is slavery to the government... not freedom... and certainly not a better life for Americans.
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
29 Oct 08
[/sarcasm} Yes, by all means lets throw off the shackles of opression laden upon us by the constitution. [/sarcasm} I think the most disturbing thing about Obama is his fundamentaly flawed view of the constitution. Particularly where the role of the federal courts, but over all, a great deal more. I hear him speak time after time on his interpretations and I can't understand how he was a constitutional law lecturer. Cripe, hasn't the current administration and congress ingored the constitution enough?