Posted on 10/28/2008 7:24:10 AM PDT by kroy
Obama: Constitution is 'Deeply Flawed'
Monday, October 27, 2008 8:20 PM
By: David A. Patten
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama described the U.S. Constitution as having “deep flaws” during a September 2001 Chicago public radio program, adding that the country’s Founding Fathers had “an enormous blind spot” when they wrote it.
Obama also remarked that the Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
Obama’s statements came during a panel discussion that aired on Chicago’s WBEZ-FM on Sept. 6, 2001, titled “Slavery and the Constitution.”
...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Constitution: Obama is Deeply Flawed
There, fixed it.
Okay, most of us have a “hubris detector” and alarm system in our brains that stops us from going too far when we begin to think we are wiser than the Founding Fathers. Apparently BO doesn’t have one.
In a sane world, his statements would immediately disqualify him for POTUS.
You got that right. He’s dangerously flawed and if elected, I’m not so sure America could recover from an Obama Presidency.
He is just echoing the sentiments and desires of his party’s founder Thomas Jefferson.
Demagogues wanting to steal freedom and liberty always see flaws that only they know how to fix. It’s one of the things Hitler used after being elected to seize total control over Germany — And look how well that turned out.
My analysis of this is that 0, as a lefty, doesn’t understand that prosperity comes from individuals acting in their own best interest leading to increased levels of lifestyle for all.
The Constitution was based on this understanding, that gov’t was only to protect property and opportunity, and otherwise STAY OUT OF OUR WAY.
Leftists/Marxists just can’t fathom that concept. All prosperity comes from top-down policies, to them. That the Constitition contains no language to this effect baffles them.
The amendment process, not the judiciary, is how the Constitution is to be corrected.
B.O. will destroy our Constitution
Which would Obama burn first, the flag or the Constitution?
I guess he likes the free speech part of it OK...
I agree it is flawed. It didn’t have enough protections against government overreaching its powers and violating our rights.
But there are only two correct approaches to solving it. One, stick to the text, as in “public use” doesn’t mean “fattening developers’ wallets” and “shall not be infringed” means, well, it should be obvious. The other is an amendment if you actually want to change the text as Obama does.
NOT!
Free speech is only for his supporters, and those voicing ideas like his own.
Otherwise, they get “Fairness Doctrined” out of business.
Not if the words of the Constitution are just playthings.
The Constitution says what human judges say it says.
the founding fathers had a blind spot when they wrote the constitution?????
What the heck is wrong with politically correct people? The world was very different then. When Jefferson wrote that “all men are created equal”, he likely meant men and not women. Does that mean the Declaration of Independence is a worthless document? The constitution allowed for slavery. It was written in an 18th century world. Does the fact that we abolished slavery eventually not matter to these people?
so, since the constitution does not read like the Communist Manifesto, is it a worthless document because it doesn’t create a perfect world such as Barack would like to see??????
This happened a lot in the Co-presidency, too- Clintonoids would distribute “old” press releases at pressers to suppress “new” articles.
If this is opposition research results, someone paid way too much for consultants and researchers to have this stuff floating to the top now.
FIRST- he is going to have an ‘ephiphany’ and ‘convert to the
religion of his forefathers.’. Wait for it.
After that, the Constitution and the Flag are BIG TARGETS.
Islam and democracy do not mix.
I’d love to know what people here think will happen if
The Obamanation goes from Christianity( yeah, right!) to
Islam after he’s in office. ((God forbid!))
What happens if the POTUS converts to a ‘religion’ that is
opposed to all this country stands for??
That right there should be grounds for Obama to be disqualified. If elected, he is required to swear an oath to protect and defend that “flawed” Constitution.
Dear Mr. Obama - it isn’t the US Constitution that is flawed, it is your interpretation and the interpretation of liberals, Marxists, and Communists like yourself that is flawed.
Obama doesn’t deserve to be POTUS. In fact, he doesn’t deserve anything but being deported to Kenya where his family apparently agrees with his Marxist agenda. Maybe ship off everyone who votes for him as well... as they obviously like the lifestyle of the poor and robbed.
I seen this sign in ohio..it read..
Osama..Obama
Bin laden....Biden
Protections on a piece of paper are only worth what the courts say they are worth. WE could have a constitutional amendment for everything true to this country, spelling out in great detail every single minute part of government - but as long as the courts and legislators take liberties with interpretation, it is nothing but a piece of paper.
Anyone got a spare case of 7.62X39 they would donate to my home and family protection efforts? I am kind of short on cash.. and it won’t get better under General Secretary Obama....errr... President Obama.
Well, he said that seven years ago and it appears that he believes it to this day.
Conclusion? There really is no cure for to-the-bone stupid.
That’s the way it used to be.
Zer0bama – and the other rats - supports those parts of the constitution that provide for a right to an abortion, a right to a living wage, a right to healthcare. They support all those rights that aren't actually written down, but were "discovered" by judges.
He doesn't support those things that are actually written in the constitution, like the right to bear arms, states rights and limits on government.
As long as the judges can decide what the constitution ‘really’ means, it can mean anything.
Seriously, try to read Roe v Wade, and ask your friends who support abortion to find that ‘right’ in the written text.
Let’s pray the military will be there when we need it.
Thomas Jefferson didn't want the Constitution to detail what the Government would do for you, he wanted the Constitution to limit the power of government, not give them a mandate for supreme power in the name of providing for the people or redistributing wealth (wealth is earned, not distributed).
Also, see the webpage identified in my tagline. It's a solid source on the Constitution.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "Brides from a War Long Ago"
The Declaration, the Constitution, parts of the Federalist, and America's Owner's Manual, here.
No effort is made, in a leftist's decision, to determine the meaning of law.
The decision process goes like this:
1) What is the socio-political outcome that I personally want to see as the result of this ruling? 2) Now, where can I find justification for that ruling? Foreign law? Bizarre twisting of the Constitution? Or do I even need justification, I'm a judge!
He openly advocated a second revolution to throw out the constitution in favor of a more “proletarian” and democratic form of government.
What caused you to write such a statement.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "Brides from a War Long Ago"
The Declaration, the Constitution, parts of the Federalist, and America's Owner's Manual, here.
That is a phrase popularized by Karl Marx. Unless you have a quote from Jefferson using that phrase I think you are fooling yourself.
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” —Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429
"he is going to have"
"after he's in office"
You are using the verbs he wants us to use. We can not afford to talk as if he has won the election. Please remember to use "would" "would be", etc.
I can’t stop thinking about it. It is causing me to question my understanding of, and my relationships with some people whom I have considered friends. I have known them to be good people that I thought might be deciding their vote on one issue such as war or abortion.
But, knowing that Obama thinks our constitution was a misguided mistake and that I know people who agree with him and his goal of tearing it down to remake our country in the vision of Karl Marx is hitting me hard.
Trade you for some .303 British. :)
No, it is highly unlikely that Jefferson intended by that immortal and sweeping phrase merely to distinguish between male and female. While it's true that the word can be used to denominate male human beings, it can and also was used its indefinite sense to refer to persons or people in general. I think it is probably an anachronistic importing of modern sensibilities and political correctness back to Jefferson's time to interpret his use of the word as an indicator of sexual distinction.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)
Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1828 edition:
MEN, plu. of man. Two or more males, individuals of the human race.
- 1. Males of bravery. We will live in honor, or die like men.
- 2. Persons; people; mankind; in an indefinite sense. Men are apt to forget the benefactor, while they riot on the benefit.
Cordially,
We dont need no stinking BO.
This was another golden opportunity for McCain. Call a press conference, keep the subject secret to guarantee press will come—with cameras—and state that in this, Obama is responsible for the most disgraceful, disgusting, reprehensible and ludicrous statement ever made by an American politician. He has contempt for the Constitution of the United States because it offers too many rights to the people. Too many protections from the power of government. He wishes the most left wing Supreme court in history had rewritten the Constitution—or ignored it. And he is upset because the court missed its chance. This is clear, concise and absolutely the truth of Obamas statements and beliefs. Naturally McCain allowed the opportunity to slip by. We have a criminally incompetent candidate and yet we are all praying that he will win for the well-being of the nation. Unbelievable, ain’t it!
Neither. They stomp on the flag, ignore the constitution.
Ok- WOULD.
“ IF” he gets elected- and I pray for deliverance from that
catastrophe daily. We were spared a ‘Gore’ presidency by nothing less than Divine Intervention, IMO and this is 1000
times more frightening.
Tho I think “IS” does apply to his ‘ephiphany’ re Islam.
Lets not get lost in arguments over verbiage or semantics here.
I still want to know what other Freepers think about a Muslim president; because that is the BASIC danger we face here,IMO.
It does not just mean what you tell me it does fix it with amendments and I will agree.
Oh and how can Obama swear to uphold the Constitution if he does not agree with it?
How can he swear?
He can LIE!!
Does Islam not consider lying to ‘infidels’ ,to promote an
Islamic world, as ‘good’?
I am thankful that you're stepping up but where were you earlier when it was happening with an actual President?
I agree that recognizing slavery was a serious flaw in the Constitution that led directly to the Civil War.
But what else could the framers have done? Create two Americas? (Calling John Edwards, LOL!)
There’s just no end to the fun you can have with this stuff.
Include in the Constitution a process for changing it when necessary, an amendment process. That's why all Americans, regardless of race, gender, and property ownership now vote.
Yeah, but that amendment process is too cumbersome, too slow, and too unlikely to yield the “social justice” that we need.
So, it’s much better to just have the judiciary “interpret” the Constitution to provide “social justice”.
Is a sarc tag necessary?
Actually, that is what the 2nd amendment is all about.
BUMP
I’ll see your bump and raise you another.
It’s so flawed it’s worked for nearly 200+ years.
If only everything good and decent had a shelf life like that.
Exactly right.
I believe the Scatterbrain's choice of words, ('the Constitution is flawed'), was a deliberate canard. In order to achieve his goal(s) then one of its major hurdle, (our Constitution), has to be revised, or even decimated. Those goals would be the elevation of the blacks at the expense of the whites. I sincerely believe Obama, and his wife, have a significant abhorrence of whites. They want whites to 'pay' for what they deem has been the subjugation of blacks to a lower-class citizens. (never mind a black is now POTUS, logic and fact not welcome in the Obama mindset). Obama, and wife, in my opinion, honestly believe that all the problems of the black community are caused by whites.
Obama, and wife, are oblivious to those problems, or the causes of, brought upon the black community by blacks themselves. And if they were not it wouldn't matter, the problem would still be the fault of the whites.
This is why, again in my opinion, he keeps on harping about Abe Lincoln. Obama couldn't care less about Lincoln, only to use his 'freeing of the slaves' as a symbolic prop to keep the eyes of his mesmerized supporters on the pendulate timepiece - manufactured by Hope & Change rather than Timex.
Recent remarks from Ayers confirms that this group actually sees modern-day America as a 'white supremacist' nation, and they are going to use any tactics to correct this perceived injustice.
Our first black President may very well set race relations back seventy years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.