Obama: The Constitution is "flawed"

[melensdad]

Obama says the Constitution is flawed. He says it was a remarkable political document. Also says Constitution reflects fundamental flaws of this country.

The link is a short film clip where he says this, and you can hear it from him. This was before he started his run for President, but there is nothing he has done that makes me believe he has changed. The election of Obama will likely be the end of our Constitutional rights. It will probably be the end of the U.S. in any ways that Obama doesn’t like.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4]YouTube - OBAMA SAYS CONSTITUTION DEEP FLAW CONTINUES TODAY[/ame]

 

[Paul]

and he will probably win and be our next president...

 

[jeremy]

Funny, it has worked really well for over 225 years. If it is not broken, why fix it!

 

[indyjoe]

Funny, it has worked really well for over 225 years. If it is not broken, why fix it!

Well, it has worked really well for at least 200. Seems like it has been forgotten for the last 25 years or so.

 

[JetGirl]

Well what would you expect? The newest quote/tape/sound byte released is him saying that one thing the Civil Rights Movement failed to do was that the "Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth" and that he says the "Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf,..."
Oh, just see for yourself: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck"]YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered[/ame]

 

[cosermann]

Rush was all over this at lunch FWIW.

 

[right winger]

This man is a dangerous loon. And not many people see it.

 

[CarmelHP]

A smiling, mealy mouthed dangerous loon, giving pablum to the easily led in order to obtain power. I hope this country can be saved from its own folly.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Dangerous loon?

Just Huey Long with an education.

 

[Coach]

Funny, it has worked really well for over 225 years. If it is not broken, why fix it!

Unless you were a woman or black it worked for 225 years. Or unless you count those four times that a man entered the White House with less popular votes than his opponent.

 

[96harley]

The lad has issues. He wants to change things. Afterall isn't change a good thing? Maybe changing the constitution will make us all a kinder gentler society.

He's muslim and can't even prove his citizenship. I can't imagine Karl Naugle or Saki Yohama running for president the last time radicals attacked us about 67 years ago. What's wrong with the current picture?

 

[TheDude]

It is flawed.















It was written by MEN with backbone and moralities. Something that some men wouldnt understand today. (read Obamanites) So it is flawed if your nothing like the men who wrote it.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Unless you were a woman or black it worked for 225 years. Or unless you count those four times that a man entered the White House with less popular votes than his opponent.

+1

Great history lesson here. BTW the 16th amendment gave us taxes. Yay.

 

[Episcopus]

The Consitution has been amended 27 times, or an average of once every 8+ years. That doesn't scream perfection. The Constitution is an amazing document; a brilliant document written by brilliant and daring men, but it is not perfect.

In fact, the first 10 amendments were put through immediately after ratification.

Thankfully, the Constitution laid out the procedure for making it more perfect.

 

[Coach]

The Consitution has been amended 27 times, or an average of once every 8+ years. That doesn't scream perfection. The Constitution is an amazing document; a brilliant document written by brilliant and daring men, but it is not perfect.

In fact, the first 10 amendments were put through immediately after ratification.

Thankfully, the Constitution laid out the procedure for making it more perfect.

Thankfully we have the amendment process and the Bill of Rights. Could you imagine where we would be without the Second Amendment being enumerated. No Bill of Rights and we would be a lot less free than we are today.

 

[CarmelHP]

If the Constitution is flawed, it most certainly is NOT because it failed to bestow rights to other people's money.

 

[GetA2J]

Well what would you expect? The newest quote/tape/sound byte released is him saying that one thing the Civil Rights Movement failed to do was that the "Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth" and that he says the "Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf,..."
Oh, just see for yourself: YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

The following is a transcript of this radio interview with commentary from Glenn Beck..

GLENN: Gang, this is the final warning. I mean it. This is the final warning. You cannot become -- you cannot get any clearer on what is coming. It amazes me day after day after day after day that America just doesn't seem to care anymore, but you cannot get any clearer. If this is out here and this man is elected, you are going to elect the most arrogant Marxist who will not be stopped because he came into office fully uncovered. Every -- do not pretend to be shocked when we begin to see a Marxist and who I believe will become a fascist President. And he will become fascist because he will not understand how you suddenly don't want to become Marxist. As he starts to change the Constitution, listen to what he said in 2001.
VOICE of interviewer: And you are joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois senator from the 13th district and a senior lecturer from the University of Chicago.
OBAMA: You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movements and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I'd be okay, but --
GLENN: Stop. Stop, stop. Remember, he's not for reparations. He's not for reparations. That's the line that everybody will tell you if you talk about this. He's not for reparations. But what is the fundamental failure of the civil rights? You got the right to vote, you can sit at a lunch counter, you can be equal. But what was the fundamental failure of the civil rights movement? Here it is.
OBAMA: But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
GLENN: Stop for a second. Obama now see it is purpose of the Supreme Court to redistribute wealth. Even if you agree that the role of government is to take wealth from one to another, should it be the role of unelected judges and justices that do this? Should it be the congress? Should it be the President? Should will be elected officials? Obama wants a radical interventionist court. He wants the court of Chuck Schumer's, and that is the court that he will get if there are 60, 60 members of the Democratic party controlling the Senate.
Now, it gets worse. Listen.
OBAMA: And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren court --
GLENN: Stop. The Warren court, so you know, is the most liberal court we have ever had. It is the court that okayed the Great Society and everything else. This is the most liberal. Notice he doesn't say that it is a liberal court. He says some people say it was -- they try to characterize it as radical. But it wasn't that radical. Why wasn't it radical? Listen.
OBAMA: It wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted and Warren interpreted it in the same way that generally is a charter of negative liberties.
GLENN: Stop, stop. This is so important, gang. This is -- I can't believe it. I mean, I have to tell you, I'm the luckiest man in the world and I understand what that really means. I'm the luckiest man in the world because in the last two or three years, I have been doing my homework and I have been reading things like I've begged you the read The Forgotten Man, Liberal Fascism, the Woodrow Wilson stuff. I know what all of this language means and it is absolutely amazing to me. Negative liberties, that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. In other words, we're not going to take your guns, we're not going to take your speech. This is what the Progressive movement tried to do under FDR. They want to get rid of those things and tell you what they will do for you. Universal housing, universal healthcare, universal jobs. This is a fundamental change. This destroys the work of the founding fathers. This takes us from a small government to an oppressive government. All liberties come from them. All blessings come from them. It is no longer -- he's framing this as negative liberties. It is only negative liberties for the state. It is putting restrictions on the state, not on people. He's flipping power. It is no longer We the People. He also says, in something that doesn't make sense. In one breath Obama talks about the essential constraints placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution and at the same time suggests that the Court should have broken free of the essential constraints put there in the Constitution by the founding fathers.
"Essential" to me has always meant that they're necessary, that they shouldn't be broken or overridden. That's what essential means to me, at least. Go ahead.
OBAMA: Says what the federal government can't do to you but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
GLENN: Holy cow.
OBAMA: And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement.
GLENN: Tragedies.
OBAMA: 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 activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
GLENN: Got it? Got it? Got it?
VOICE: Made the point that the Warren court wasn't terribly radical, my question is -- with economic changes. My question, is it too late for that reparative work economically and is that the appropriate place for reparative work to take place?
VOICE of interviewer: You mean the court?
VOICE of interviewer: The court or would it be economic at this point?
OBAMA: Maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor but --
GLENN: Stop, stop, stop. Where is the media on this man! He is not a law professor. There is a huge difference. Anyone who is at a university, will you speak up! He is not a law professor. He is a senior lecturer now on leave, period. That's what he is. There is a difference between a lecturer and a law professor. The man doesn't care. There is a vast difference between the two titles, a vast difference between the two titles. But Professor Obama doesn't seem to know that, or he's not going to let the facts get in the way. This man is unhinged from anything that we recognize as truth. This man is unhinged from anything that we recognize as fundamentally essentially American.
First of all, Senator Obama and senior lecturer, you talk about how the government, according to the Constitution, is defined, the federal government is told what it cannot do. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do. Have you read the Constitution? I know you're a senior lecturer, but have you read it, sir? What is the Tenth Amendment all about? "All powers not expressly stated in the Constitution are reserved to the states." The Constitution only plays restriction on the federal government. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say what a state can't do. A state and a local government can do whatever they want. You are taking this Constitution. This man may be the man who drives the final nail into the coffin of our Constitution. He may be the man who drives the stake through the hearts of our founding fathers.
If anyone still believes, because this is what he's going to say, I'm talking about basic fairness. No, he's not. He is talking about reparations. I am talking about a system of government that I love. No, you do not, sir. You would like to change it into something else that you love. This is a guy who sees the Constitution and something that is outdated. That does not work, does not need to stand. It is exactly the same reason why the Democrats said no more power for this long with FDR. It is the same reason why the Democrats stopped FDR from packing the court. This is what FDR wanted to do. This is Liberal Fascism. And it is our final wake-up call, America. It is our final wake-up call. We are not going to get anything more clear from Senator Obama than this. You are not going to see it any plainer than this. I cannot believe how crystal clear this is. Now will America wake up. This is not about John McCain. I am not a supporter of John McCain, but today I'm going to make an endorsement. Like it makes any difference at all. Let me rephrase that. It's not an endorsement. I'm going to cast my vote today. You've got to make your own decisions and I don't think you listen to me for "Oh, who's Glenn going to vote for." And I'll explain it later on in the program. Wake up. Tell your friends, wake up.

I will say it again....
This guy scares the hell outa me!

 

[jsgolfman]

Thankfully we have the amendment process and the Bill of Rights. Could you imagine where we would be without the Second Amendment being enumerated. No Bill of Rights and we would be a lot less free than we are today.

We can thank the anti-federalists (actually federalists, anti is the word given to them because federalist was co-opted, the federalists should actually be called nationalists, but I digress) for that. The original intent was to not enumerate any rights at all because there was a fear that if rights were listed, the future governments would assume that the list was exhaustive and any right not listed would be usurped by the government.

Everyone should take the time to read not only the federalist papers, but the many essays of the "anti-federalists" as well. Very enlightening.

 

[Dogman]

I will say it again....
This guy scares the hell outa me!

, and by the way, Glen Beck rocks!!!

 

[CarmelHP]

Dangerous loon?

Just Huey Long with an education.

You mean like Pol Pot?