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 ...
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.
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?
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.