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?