Barack Obama wearing his professorial hat (Obama says Constitution is a flawed document)

wbez.org ^ | 06/30/08 | wbez/Obama/Josh Andrews

[TornadoAlley3]

There was a great article in the New York Times yesterday about Barack Obama’s time as a faculty member at the University of Chicago Law School. The timing was uncanny for me, as I had recently pulled some CD’s out of our archive room and been listening to some appearances that Obama made as a guest on Odyssey, the talk show I used to produce here at Chicago Public Radio. We had Obama, then a State Senator and Senior Lecturer at the Law School, on the program 3 times between 1998 and 2002. When he joined us, he was more than willing to set aside his political persona and put on his academic hat. He participated in discussions on the evolution of the right to vote, the politics of electoral redistricting, and the uneasy relationship between slavery and the constitution in early America.

Here’s an excerpt from the call-in segment for the Slavery and the Constitution show that aired in September of 2001. The other voices you’ll hear are the host, Gretchen Helfrich, and UIC historian Richard John.

[kesg]

This is beyond the usual liberal tripe. It is radical far leftist trip — the notion that the Constitution essentially MANDATES socialist policies. This is what Obama means when he is complaining about the Constitution as creating “a charter of negative liberties” rather than the 1787 version of The Communist Manifesto.

Okay, I’m rethinking what I said earlier. It’s bad enough that he believes in coercive redistribution of wealth. It’s worse when he entertains any notion that the Constitution mandates it.

[El Gato]

Thank goodness no one man has the power to change it.

But we may be about to give one man the power to ignore when it suits him. More than the general run of the political critter already does that is. Much more.

[Arizona Carolyn]

I guess he considers that one of the flaws....

[ZULU]

“The founding fathers never thought democracy could work without a strong moral foundation...we’ve lost that foundation and if the founding fathers could have seen that they’d wouldn’t be surprised that Obama is so close to being elected president.”

There is an ancient Roman proverb that goes, Leisure without Knowledge is Death. We could say that “democracy” without core moral principles is death. With Obama we stand on the brink of a tyranny in the sense that word was understood in Ancient Greece - a tyrant being someone who seizes power through extra-constitutional means with popular support.

[ZULU]

The Darth Vader of American politics will be banished to the Dark Side as long as McCain doesn’t loose his guts.

[smokingfrog]

Obama’s Idea of a Supreme Court Judge

Obama=Poor Judgement…
If Barack Obama is elected it is possible that four Supreme Court Justices could be selected during his tenure.

Do you trust him to select Supreme Court Judges?

Obama’s Words
When asked what criteria Obama would require when selecting judges he said,
“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” - Barack Obama, To Planned Parenthood, July 17, 2007

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama on the Confirmation of Judge John Roberts
“Truly difficult cases” should involve “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” September 22, 2005

The Supreme Court Oath
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath: “I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

NFRW’s Words
A Supreme Court Justice is to “do equal right to the poor and to the rich”-not just the poor as Obama believes.

A Supreme Court Justice is to, “administer justice without respect to persons,”-not taking into account if that person is “African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old,” as Obama said.

A Supreme Court Justice is to, “be impartial,”-not talking in to account “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy,” as Obama said.

Barack Obama does not honor the Supreme Court Oath and its intent. Do you trust him to select Supreme Court Justices?

20 WEEKS UNTIL THE 2008 ELECTION
Submitted from the TFRW Newsletter

Share and Enjoy:

[Hoodat]

bttt

[wastedyears]

No offense, but I don’t want to wait through 7 minutes of audio, and hear that Communist’s voice. I hate that guy.

[I'm ALL Right!]

...unless he has a supermajority of rats (like the pied piper) behind him.

[wastedyears]

***Thank goodness no one man has the power to change it.***

Don’t be so sure about that. He’s a through-and-through Communist.

[Enchante]

While Obama does not use such a succinct formula as "spread the wealth" here, it is quite clear that he is saying the civil rights movement did not go far enough because the ultimate goal is to redistribute wealth through the political process. He even uses his favorite word "change" in this context, which finally gives some substance to the Obamessiah's mantra of change, change, change. The Warren Court "wasn't that radical" but the Obamamessiah wants to go much further in seizing resources with the arm of the govt. in order to "redistribute" them:

OBAMA: "But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical....One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that."

[wastedyears]

He makes me want to go to my local park, and scream as loud as I can for as long as I can. Only problem is, I can’t hold enough air to make it worth the strain on my vocal chords.

[jackmercer]

Of course it was a flawed document. I happen to agree with him here when he said it was a flawed document with a blindspot.

The blindspot being that a majority of the framers (and most of society at the time) viewed black people as less than human. This was later corrected, or perfected, with the addition of the 14th amendment.

If you believe that the constitution was or is perfect, then you would have to conclude that the framers or legislators are either omnipotent (gods) or prohphets of God and divinely inspired. Either would be blasphemous or silly, depending on your spiritual tendencies.

So the consitution is inherently flawed as it is a product of inherently flawed human minds. This is precisely why room was made for corrections. By allowing constitutional amendments, the framers themselves were admitting that the constitution was not perfect.

[Enchante]

correction to my own post: actually, Obamessiah does use the phrase “redistribution of wealth” which is the slightly more academic version of “spread the wealth”

[TheThinker]

In other words, the Constitution is only as powerful as the people who believe it. It is both its flaw and its strength. It’s up to Americans to uphold it and this American only realized how much we dance on the edge of a knife.

[Cboldt]

The comments at the linked source are amazing. The audio has apparently been out since July 30, 2008.

3. Two points:
1) Even though all the legal and academic talk flew over my head, I was impressed with Obama's intellect and eloquence more than ever.
2) All the people who claim Obama's only skill is reading well off a tele-prompter (a skill McCain can't seem to grasp) should listen to this clip.

5. Fantastic! A wonderful legal discussion which shows the great intellect and thinking of Obama. I disagree with Sherman's politically biased opinion which seems to be nothing but a set of McCain talking points. I understand that McCain has giant rotating teams with computers whose sole job is to insert opinions on all the blogs and comments throughout the internet. What's funny is that McCain does not even know what the internet is!!! LOL!
Comment: John - 31. July 2008 @ 11:10 am

6. That was a high quality talk show wow! Way to go Chicago. You can get a sense of the great intellect of Obama during this clip.
When you compare his words to the ones of GWB who resumes the credit crunch by the words 'Wall street got drunk..'
Comment: Martin from Montreal - 31. July 2008 @ 12:06 pm

7. Oh, to have an intelligent and thoughtful president for a change! Think of the great people he will place in his government and the advances we can make as a nation based on the good of all rather than the profit of a few! And I agree with the comment that McCain has a whole lot of people whose job it is to write comments to articles. They always seem to have the first two comments on each article, and then the next 100 are real people who write intelligently.
Comment: Al - 31. July 2008 @ 2:48 pm

8. Obama is one of the most impressive individuals I have ever observed in politics. There are millions of people around the world (including here in Australia) willing this man on to become the next President of the United States. Can you imagine the optimism and good that will flow into to the world with Barack as President and Michelle his equally impressive wife as First Lady? These are exciting times. And just in time.

There're plenty more where those came from.

[MHGinTN]

The little Marxist squirrel was wearing his professorial hat when he tried his damndest to remove Constitutional human rights from born alive struggling to breath infants, too. Wickedness usually has a certain brilliance in it ... from Hell.

[XR7]

Michelle his equally impressive wife as First Lady...

[NinoFan]

Not surprised to see Orin Kerr poo-pooing it at the Conspiracy. I don’t get why such a libertarian blog treats Obama like a moderate Dem. Libertarians should be very fearful of an Obama presidency.

[Cboldt]

-- Not surprised to see Orin Kerr poo-pooing it at the Conspiracy. I don’t get why such a libertarian blog treats Obama like a moderate Dem. Libertarians should be very fearful of an Obama presidency. --

Kerr is an egg-head. Ilya is quite down on Obama, as are the majority of commentators, and I'd say 80% of the sane commentators.

On this one, Kerr is wondering if Obama's position is (a) whether advocates should involve the courts at all, vis-a-vis redistribution, or (b) whether it would be difficult for a court of justify ordering a resdistributive scheme, or (c), the courts should have ordered it already. Kerr's focus in on the courts as agent, and he is trying to avoid taking a side as to whether redistribution (in some undefined form) comports with the constitution or not.

In other words, he's avoiding the interesting issue, and trying to distract into an issue that is literally of only academic interest. He does this sort of "directing" from time to time. I just blow it off, as do most of the people posting. At the end of the debate, he's just another commentator anyway.