Obama And The Constitution
Oct 27, 2008 Political
Barack Obama is reported to have been a Constitutional law professor though every time I hear him speak about the Constitution I wonder which country’s document he knows well enough to teach. An audio from an interview done in 2001 was released over the weekend and in it Obama laments that the Warren Court did not discuss wealth redistribution as part of the civil rights movement. As it was stated in a Fox article, Obama thinks that when dispossessed people appealed to the high court for a place at the lunch counter, they should have appealed to have someone else pay for the meal. This has been Barack Obama’s MO for a long time. People who have more money should have some of it taken away and given to those who have less money. Socialism.
Most people already know that Obama is a Socialist. His followers know it but they want Socialism because they want to get something for nothing. The wealthier ones will say they want to pay more to help people along but in the end they will find a way not to do so. How many of them donate money to the treasury? People can do that so they could give even more than what they pay in taxes but it seems they have no real desire. Obama followers are the people who run around with their hands out (well one hand, the other is holding a cell phone) and love the idea of screwing some rich guy so they can have more of what they did not earn. The Obama campaign sent an email a few minutes ago asking people to take election day off for Obama. As if most of his followers even have jobs. The balance can probably take the day off but the warden won’t release them to help out.
So, in this interview Obama says that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties:
“It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.
“And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way — that the Constitution is a document 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 state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.”
“And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,” Obama said. Fox
I think that this professor is sadly mistaken with regard to the Constitution. Starting with the last thing; it is not the job of government, including the courts, to bring about redistributive change. The courts are well within their power to levy fines and rule in civil cases where money is awarded but they have no power and no authority to decide that one person makes more than another so he has to share. We do not suffer because a court did not rule in favor of Socialism, we suffer because liberals have made entire classes of people dependent on government so much so that many do not know how to take care of themselves, an individual responsibility.
Now, on to this idea about a document of negatives that does not tell you what government should do for you. The Constitution explains right up front the purpose of coming together and what the expected outcome of the established government is:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[sic] promote Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It is pretty clear to me that the reasons we formed the country are well laid out and the things that government will do, as established in “this Constitution” are clearly indicated and are not negatives. The reason we came together and formed this government as established in the Constitution is to form a more perfect union (not a perfect one), establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, and promote liberty. None of these are negatives. They clearly state what government will do for the people because it was formed by the people. One thing it certainly does not say is that we should redistribute wealth.
I am no law professor and I am certainly no Constitutional expert but I think I have a better grasp on this concept than Obama does. What I believe that Obama meant is that the Constitution is a negative document because it does not follow his idea of what government should do. He is upset because the court did not break free of the essential constraints established by the founders. First of all, if the constraints are essential why would we break free of them? Secondly, the founders knew well that government was a problem and not a solution. They were well aware of the problems with governments and what happens when people rule over the lives of others.
Our founders never intended for us to have a government as big as the one we now have. They never intended for government to be the provider of any more than that which is clearly enumerated in the document. Our founders would not recognize this country and would believe that they had failed if they were here to see how out of control it has gotten.
But for a Socialist like Obama, the founders put constraints on the ability of those like him to rule over the lives of others while keeping them oppressed, like Democrats do to their black constituents. So, like all liberals, he expected a court to right a perceived injustice over which the court has no authority.
The idea that the Supreme Court should have given us redistributive change (read wealth redistribution) should scare anyone who cares about personal freedom. Obama’s 2001 interview clearly verifies that he is a socialist and that his response to Joe the Plumber was no mistake.
This interview also gave us insight as to what kind of people he would appoint to the Supreme Court. The court recently ruled in favor of redistributive change in the Kelo decision. That was not popular and it did not settle well with most people because it gave government the right to take property from one group and give it to another. The kind of judges Obama would appoint will make that decision look good in comparison.
We have to stop this now.
Tags: civil rights, Obama, reditributive change, socialism, supreme court, wealh redistribution