Posted on 10/27/2008 11:19:59 PM PDT by TheFourthMagi
Video here.
The only “flaw” in the Constitution was not freeing the slaves (although it wouldn’t have been ratified under those circumstances). Ironically, had that happened, far fewer Black People would have been brought to the US as slaves, and most of the “African-Americans” who run around cursing this country, would simply be “Africans”, without the hyphen. Then they could wear Dashikis for real, and not just for dress up. They would also be able to enjoy the liberty and vibrant economy of the African continent. You know, like Obama’s brother.
New 1995 Obama video on Wright
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh7xMhsLnac
“Wright who is my paster and he is a wonderful man”.
“My own faith which is not necessarily a traditional faith”.
“Rev. Wright, my pastor who I speak about in a chapter the book, represents the best of what the Black church has to offer”
saving
But I listened to the interview where this comment comes from. He's saying that racism against blacks was THE fundamental flaw of our nation, and I absolutely agree.
I wish we'd never had slaves. No slaves, no civil war. No civil war, no loss of states rights. No Jim Crow, no loss of states rights, no civil rights movement needed. No civil rights movement, no achilles heel for leftists to exploit and gain the moral high ground. The commies have been exploiting this weakness all the way back to the Scottsboro boys.
Hell, no slavery, probably we'd never have had the great society, welfare, inner city gangs, debasement of culture. Slavery and racism against blacks absolutely was our fundamental birth defect, and it definitely haunts us to this day. Look at Katrina. No slavery, no 9th ward.
I think the analysts in that interview got some things wrong though. They saw the 3/4ths compromise as a concession to the slavers. I see it as holding the line against the slavers. They believed they had to get a Constitution, and preserve the Union, and deal with the rest later. I think they were right. And of course Obama seeks to further exploit this birth defect of ours. But I can't say he is incorrect in this statement. The other statements he made are worthy of scorn. This one does nothing for me.
What he is in fact referring to is his own overarching view that the Constitution should provide socialist guarantees of redistribution of money from those who earn it to those who do not. That is his core economic philosophy, and that is his objection to the United States Constitution:
That is the "fundamental flaw that continues to this day" in the worldview of B.O.
He definitely favors redistribution of wealth, and said so in the other interview. That's also the one where he talks about the Warren court and overcoming constitutional restraints. All of that is abhorrent.
But this was a different interview, on a different subject. They were discussing the presence of slavery IN the Constituion, the way it was implied but never stated outright, in the 3/5ths clause, etc. He said that the Constitution REFLECTED a fundamental flaw--racism against blacks--and that that flaw continues to this day.
I'm trying to find a transcript to back up my point. I realize I'm peeing in the wind here, it's just that the other interview is substantive and relevant. This one, imo, is being distorted. Racism indeed continues to haunt us to this day. Not only in the ways he would suggest, but also in the reverse. We'd have been much better off without slavery, Jim Crow, etc. I don't think this discussion was about socialism at all.
Racism is not written into the Constitution. When he speaks of “a fundamental flaw that continues to this day”, that cannot refer to slavery, which was banned by Amendment more than 140 years ago.
Well, I listened to the whole thing. I’m just going to drop it, because I’d rather not be in the position of defending Obama’s remarks. His other interview is the damaging one. This one is being distorted. I’d rather see people deal with real criticisms worthy of merit, but again, there I go peeing in the wind.
I think it's a remarkable document...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 were not 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 that we can say the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and the Framers had that same blind spot.
Here's a link to audio of this section:
A few comments of mine:
Clearly, what he is referring to is that the Framers, and the culture of the time, were not sufficiently morally compelled to deal with slavery. I agree with him. The reasons they were not had to do with pragmatic, cost/benefit analysis. I agree with that. In short, he was a cultural problem reflected in the Constitution, not a Constitutional problem reflected in the culture. I agree with that. When he says it continues to this day, I agree with that. Who can honestly say black/white relations are healthy? That the history of blacks in America doesn't continue to cause us grief and trouble?
Funny when he compares the moral issue to environmental issues. The real and obvious parallel is ABORTION. I could easily say that the lack of specificity in the Constitution regarding judicial review and role of the Courts is a FLAW in the document, that allows the culture to do things through the courts(allow abortions) that are morally wrong.
In essence, he's saying the government is the product of the culture that created it, not the other way around. He's correct.
The other interview is the good one. This one is not controversial at all when viewed in context. The distortion of his comments in this interview are unecessary, and dishonest.
And if you wonder where I stand on this election, check my tagline. That's my take on it.
Socialist guarantees. That is his core view, notwithstanding any additional comments of his.
He wants socialist guarantees in the Constitution. He wants them for racial reasons. And he is indefensible so please don't defend him. He isn't worth it.
I agree that he wants socialism. I don't agree he thinks it needs to be written in. I believe he thinks that it can be accomplished legislatively, regardless of the Constitution. I'd actually give him credit if he thought it necessary to seek Constitutional backing for his plans. I don't believe he thinks that is necessary, and I think he believes a sufficiently radical court will uphold his schemes. But he doesn't think you can count on the courts to be the engine of those changes. He thinks that has to be done through activism. That's what he is seeking to accomplish. I vehemently oppose his goals.
That is the "fundamental flaw that continues to this day" to which he refers.
Again, I disagree. You obviously have made up your mind, even though the interview does not support your conclusion. You are confusing two separate interviews on two different subjects.
Listen to the part of the 2001 interview
I didn't just listen to part of it. I listened to the whole thing. Did you?
where he talks characterizes the Constitution as "negative", meaning, in his words, that it should contain guarantees of what the government must do for you:
He does in fact want a Constitution that promises to do stuff "for you." But that's not what he means when he says "negative rights." He doesn't mean "bad rights." He is correct that the Constitution largely contains "negative" rights. That's what we conservatives love so much about it: It is about what the government cannot do. The Bill of Rights is the best example of this: "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW". It's about constraining the gubmint. He is correct about that. He laments the fact, I celebrate it. But the fact is correct--the Constitution is a limit on gubmint.
Socialist guarantees. That is his core view
I agree.
He wants socialist guarantees in the Constitution. He wants them for racial reasons.
I agree with this also. But I don't think he will let a lack of Constitutional guarantees constrain him. And that has nothing to do with the discussion on slavery in the Constitution. You're simply confusing two separate discussions.
And he is indefensible so please don't defend him. He isn't worth it.
I'm not defending him. I'm defending the facts. I think it's important to recognize that he isn't merely a run of the mill union thug type lefty who has never read the Constitution and does not understand its history. He is far MORE dangerous, because he DOES understand it, making his views all the more disturbing. He knows exactly what he's doing.
Anyway, go ahead and flail about. It doesn't bother me. And like I said, I know I'm peeing in the wind. Chances are, even though the 'fundamental flaw' brouhaha is a distortion, it will probably hurt him anyway, which I guess is fine. I certainly don't want him to prevail. Why let facts get in the way of good political warfare?
That wind blows towards you.
Well duh. Otherwise peeing in the wind would be no big deal. You, of course, are breaking wind. Have a nice day.
Thank you both for an interesting discussion. Regret your parting was so graphic.
Based on O’s use of the word “reflects”, it is easy enough for many of us to conclude he will take steps to “correct” the fundamental flaw(s) he sees in the Constitution.
Glad you got something out of it. No biggie about the parting. All in good fun. I’ve seen much worse. As to your point, I don’t think he’ll bother to try actually amending the Constitution. He’ll just do what he wants to do regardless. That’s why I think it’s important to know that he does undertstand. He is for willful subversion, or as he calls it—”the change we need.”
Thank you for the cordiality of your comment. It is appreciated.
“...I don’t think he’ll bother to try actually amending the Constitution.”
Agreed.
He will rely on federal agency policy revisions, Executive Orders, judicial appointments, state and federal legislation and state Governors, to name a few.
It also appears he is a single vote away from having the SC.
(Bush v Gore 5-4, Heller 5-4 to say nothing of the property rights cases.)
And, there is his proposed Civil National Security Force.
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.