It's a beautiful day...
Like many of us have been saying for months and months: Heeeees a commieeeee.
People are not listening; They have already made up their mind.
Why is it that Democrats seem to have the most problems with the Constitution?
Yes, I know the standard answers, but bear with me. Are not liberals usually the ones who are so concerned about everyone’s constitutional rights? It’s always the left who worries that someone’s rights are being infringed, usually in some contorted, strained context.
Here we are, supposed to be worried about Bushitler listening in on calls originating into or out of Afghanistan (as if there couldn’t possibly be a national security interest in doing so), and apparently the leftist presidential nominee has a problem with the central f-ing concept of the Constitution as a limit on governmental power. WTH?
Lest we forget that President Wilson thought the Constitution was outdated 90 years ago and unnecessarily limited the power of the president. Ditto for FDR.
Every leftist professes love for the Consitution and bemoans threats to it, while at the same time essentially denouncing it as an antiquated document for which allegiance to it signifies membership in the John Birch Society.
Libbies are friggin’ schizo about the Constitution. Obama is no different.
CAREFUL!!!
The link you posted with this article, seems to have been taken over by spammers
http: //www.freerepublic.com/^http: //washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/28/a-game-changer-by-obama-himself/
When I clicked on it it came up with all sorts of pop-ups and offers to download spyware software...
The Obama campaign is giving some lame excuse about the opinions on a legal point by a professor do not equate with the policies of a politician and the mainstream media is supporting the explanation. The same argument didn’t go over too well when Robert Bork was making the same point but apparently times have changed.
I think the Washington Times site has been hacked. Even if I go directly to their site and try to pull up this article, I get a blank page. Others in this thread are reporting popups and attempts to access their computer.
Transcipt: Chicago Public Radio Interview WBEZ.FM
Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM
And we’re joined by Barack Obama, who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th District and a senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago
Obama: “…you know if you look at, um, the victories and the failures of the civil rights movement, um, and, its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights, uh, in, previously dispossessed peoples, so that uh I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I would be okay, uh, but the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth. Uh, and, served more basic issues of political and, and, uh, economic justice in this society. And, uh, to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren court, uh, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed, uh, uh, by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, 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 it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. Uh, and that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, uh, I think, uh the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, 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, and activities on the ground, that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive, uh, change, uh, and, uh in some ways we still suffer from that.”
[He just said it’s a tragedy the constitution wasn’t radically reinterpreted to force redistribution of wealth for African Americans. And it‘s still an issue today.]
HOST: Let’s talk with Karen, good morning Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.
CALLER: Hi, um, the gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t, uh, terribly radical. My question is — um, with economic changes. My question is, is it to late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and, is that the appropriate place for reparative — economic work to take place…
HOST: you mean the court?
CALLER: the courts, or would it be legislation at this point?
OBAMA: Uh, you know, maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but uh, I’m not optimistic about bringing about, uh, major, uh, redistribute, uh, uh, change, uh through the courts, um — you know the institution just isn’t structured that way.
[He doesn’t think the courts can do it but he does think the court can do it legislatively. It isn’t too late]
Uh, um, you know you just should look at very rare examples where during the desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order uh, uh, you know changes that cost money, to uh, local school district. And the court was very uncomfortable with it, it was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. Uh, you start getting into all sorts of uh separation of powers issues, uh, you know in terms of, uh, the court monitoring or engaging in a process uh that, essentially, is administrative and takes a lot of time.
[He just said redistribution of wealth is an administrative task!!!]
Um, you know and, the court just isn’t very good at it and politically it’s just it’s very hard to legitimize opinions, from the, uh, from the court in that regard. So I mean I think that, uh, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, um, you know I think you can — any three of us sitting here could, could come up with, uh, a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.
[This is not a discussion about whether redistribution of wealth is right or wrong. This is a discussion about how best to do it!!!]
FAST FORWARD TO 2008:
Joe the Plumber: ….plan is going to tax me more. Doesn’t it?
Obama: It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.
Lazy left-wing moonbats would sell out the constitution for a piece of pie....as long as they don’t have to earn, buy or bake the pie themselves.
For a close election like this one, it is a game changer. The Joe the Plumber exchange has been out there for about a month and this is all sinking into the electorate. It is creating doubt on Hussein.
The majority of undecideds (and moderates) will break for McCain.