Mmm... back in May of 2009 when I first wrote this article, I expressed a hope I had held before the 2008 Presidential election. My hope was that in the time between 2001 and the present, Candidate Obama would have changed into a President Obama who had changed his mind about how he views the Constitution.
SilverKait continues:
He hasn't.
At the time of the first version of this article, we had already seen some of what he believes and intended in the actions taken with respect to Chrysler, GM and the shut out of it's legal shareholders vs the unions. He had also then just turned his eye upon the prize he most covets, the judiciary branch of the government - the Supreme Court.
And, as I wrote in a previous article (on another blog), if he puts into practice only half of what he believed back in 2001, or half of what he said he wanted to put into practice as Candidate Obama, we'll soon see break after break "from the essential constraints" in the Constitution as it and we are changed through the so-called critical ingredient found in the judge du-jour's heart, as well as through administrative "workarounds," instead of through either a legal constitutional vote in Congress, or the ammendment process found in the Constitution itself.
Which brings me to the reason I have edited (updated) this article.
I have heard many people say it in many different ways over the last several months. I myself have also thought it and said it. ... But just now, reading the following paragraph in one of Anthony Del Pellegrino's articles [President Obama; The Great Divider] caused the words of that paragraph, and Obama's words from 2001 to coalesce
Anthony said, "Instead of trying to use the Constitution of the United States to unite Americans around a set of principles that create the rationale for proper American domestic policies, the President has been undermining the Constitution with initiatives designed to circumvent its intent. The appointment of czars and adoption of policies that have entities such as the EPA create and implement their own regulations without congressional approval are just a few examples of such deceit."
Obama must have known that would have to be the way he would have to do it ... redistribution, that is. Here is a excerpt from what Obama said in 2001:
"I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. Eh, uh, you know, the institution just isn't structured that way. You just said look at very rare examples where during in the desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to local district. And the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage. It was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of Separation of Power issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that, uh, essentially is administrative and -- and takes a lot of time.
Administrative?
Of course it is if the Constitution is actually just a piece of paper like any other (which some people believe), or is a living breathing document that can be changed at the whim of a changing society or changed circumstances.
But, that would be like saying the contract you signed for your mortgage is a living breathing document and can be changed ... er ... um ... okay...uhhh ....
Let me use a different example. It would be like saying the contract you sign with a credit card company can be changed and you won't have to pay what you promised to pay just because you spent more than you could afford to ... er uhm ... no that won't do ...
Maybe this will work .... That's like saying the contract you have with your creditors when you start a business or have been doing business for a long time can just be swept under the rug and other people can be made to shoulder the burden of your bills if you run ... your company ... into the ... er ground ...
Okay here's one ... That's like saying the contract you sign when you become an investor in a company can be changed at a whim by an outside entity without regard to what the document legally actually ... er ... um ...
Wait ...wait ... there must be ... um ... yeah, here's one .... That's like saying the contract another country has with it's own citizens to run their government in a fiscally responsible way can be changed so that they are not responsible for their own incompetence and other countries can be made to ... er ... gee ... to ...pay your ... +sigh+
Hmmm.... seems like we are at the place where character and self responsibility is at an all time low; and contracts, and legal documents are just pieces of paper that can be changed or torn up at any whim or circumstance. +sigh+
The Constitution might not have much of chance to survive this atmosphere . . . glad I have several copies of it anyway; just in case we might want to try it on again for size someday.
Check this out: Glenn Beck-05/11/10-A
Glenn Beck-05/11/10-B
Check out this workaround:
In Another Back-Door Side-Step of the Congressional Process, Obama Helps Card Check Along the Path to Implementation
_____________
Previous Background References:
ELECTION 2008
Obama rips U.S. Constitution
Faults Supreme Court for not mandating 'redistribution of wealth'
Posted: October 27, 2008 1:46 pm Eastern
Excerpt:
"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." [Go to the page for more info, and for a sound byte]
Obama: U.S. Constitution Reflects the Fundamental Flaw of this Country that Continues to this Day
Excerpt:
"Regarding the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama for the Presidency of the United States, questions must be raised.
The President of the United States must take an Oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. In this context, Obama's perspective and views on the U.S Constitution are highly relevant.
In 2001, Barack Obama (then an Illinois State Senator) participated in a radio interview on Chicago's WBEZ-FM program, Odyssey. Two statements are particularly interesting. The first is Obama's view that the U.S Constitution reflects the fundamental flaw of the United States:" [Go to the page to hear two sound bytes]
Obama: Constitution is 'Deeply Flawed'
This link is broken, but the info can be found on many sites, and the transcript is accurate so I'll leave the excerpts.
Monday, October 27, 2008 8:20 PM
By: David A. Patten
Excerpt:
"Obama's statements came during a panel discussion that aired on Chicago's WBEZ-FM on Sept. 6, 2001, titled "Slavery and the Constitution."
". . . The discussion that led to the statements took place on the now-defunct Odyssey program, which also aired statements by Obama bemoaning the fact that the Civil Rights movement had failed to bring about an economic redistribution of wealth in America.
Obama's remarks came toward the end of a somewhat professorial, academic discussion on the Constitution and the evolution of Civil Rights.
The panelists were discussing the compromise struck by the Founding Fathers to avoid a direct confrontation over slavery, as well as the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments after the Civil War."
In the 2001 interview, Obama also 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 peoples so that, uh, I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and -- and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
To that extent, as radical as I think people tried 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 has been interpreted -- and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that 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 coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, uh, in some ways we still suffer from that.
I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. Eh, uh, you know, the institution just isn't structured that way. You just said look at very rare examples where during in the desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to local district. And the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage. It was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of Separation of Power issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that, uh, essentially is administrative and -- and takes a lot of time.
(Here he was asked a two part question but either didn't understand it or chose to ignore the other part - the sound bytes can clarify somewhat.". . . I think it's a remarkable document...
The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments...but I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.
African-Americans were not - first of all they weren't African-Americans - the Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the Framers. I think that as Richard said it was a 'nagging problem' in the same way that these days we might think of environmental issues, or some other problem where you have to balance cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.
And in that sense, I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."
Obama's arrogance: Senator cites self, instead of the law
Excerpt:
"With typical liberal narcissism, Obama thinks the Constitution is all about himself. He said as much when he voted against confirming Chief Justice John Roberts. He agreed that the judge was impeccably qualified, but voiced concern that the two of them would not feel the same way about certain cases."
"In those circumstances," he theorized, "your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country, or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions, or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce ... in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."
Obalderdash.
The type of affirmative action that Obama champions, racial quotas and double-standards in state college admissions, is a direct violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act."
SilverKait says: What ever the reader may think Bush's faults were irt that same subject, this is not about Bush. Asking 'but what about what Bush did' in any form is just an avoidance of what I'm actually writing about. Bush did stuff. Some was bad, some not so bad, little as bad as libs and others think, although there could be some worse probably. However; this is not about Bush, and citing Bush's real or imagined faults as a response to Obama's actual somewhat fuzzy thinking irt the Constitution is at best tangential.
No comments:
Post a Comment