Skip to comments.Obama: Government can constrain the exercise of rights. WTF?
Posted on 04/17/2008 6:33:59 AM PDT by Bobarian
Obama is quoted saying this during last night's debate:
"I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right," he said.
Let's plug some different variables into this equation and see if it adds up:
"Just because you have an individual right [to bear arms] does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right."
"Just because you have an individual right [to free speech] does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right."
"Just because you have an individual right [not to be searched unreasonably] does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right."
"Just because you have an individual right [to freely exercise religion] does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right."
"Just because you have an individual right [to an abortion] does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right."
Does anyone else find this disturbing, or are my panties in a wad over nothing?
Yeah... on the one hand, it is disturbing, even sickening what the constitution has come to mean. On the other hand, isn't this just the status quo - aka business as usual? I don't think anyone associates Hillary with liberty, and McCain has demonstrated that "Congress shall make no law restricting free speech" doesn't include his campaign finance reform.
Opps, that is awkward isn’t it:
“Just because you have an individual right [to an abortion] does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.”
But he does that with every topic...It's his FORM of oratory....and non-commitment.
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." R.Reagan
Disturbing is not the word. Obama’s words are the words of a tyrant. He is a patient wolf.
And yet there are those that say JM and BHO - no difference.
This is why an ignorant moron like Obama will lose. He is essentially denying that all rights come from our Creator. What a stupid candidate.
Indeed, it appears that Senator Schumer (D NY) has developed this line of thinking into an art form where he can say he “supports” the Second Amendment, while filing bills that cut away and cut away who can enjoy that right and where he can enjoy it.
Since liberalism, at its core is where a person lies to himself, we can expect the will lie to everyone else too. Anyone who has listened to the oral arguments in DC v Heller will hear the attorney for the District of Columbia tell the US Supreme Court that their total ban on handguns in the District alway included a self defense exemption!
The positions that both Obama and Clinton have elaborated in public about the Second Amendment is just like that bold lie: after I ban all guns, you can still hunt and use yours to protect your family. Who you gonna believe, what I'm telling you now, or the law that I told the gun-grabbers I want to sign?
But the main point is you are correct - these leftists never explain their initial statements and nobody presses them on it. And they never go to forums where people would press them on it.
Such a simple truth. Such profound consequences when we forget that.
I took the mandatory NYS Hunting Safety class in 1962 to get my deer license. I got several bulls eyes on the test and I pasted it on the refrigerator...just like a kid.
“Just because you have an individual right [to an abortion] “
The left and their willing dupes, “conservative” atheists,
deny the existance of a Creator in order to deny that that’s where our rights originate.
Since the rights are conferred by man, or a construct of man, they can also be revoked in the same manner.
“...just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right...”
THIS from a candidate whose party opposes the Patriot Act!!!
I think the people who wrote the Constitution believed that the rights conferred restrained the government.
Of course, people of Obama’s persuasion think the Constitution is a silly old document written by slaveholders.
A typical portrait of a (Racist) who hates Whites, Jews and other Non-BLT members.
Obuma would make a far better Shoeshine boy, than either a senator or a president.
The smug look on his face reminds me of the the black militants that I enjoyed putting in jail.
Any person who would vote for this fool is either a mad man or woman or a complete self serving loathing POS.
Inalienable right and its necessary corollary BUMP!
Not sure where you’re coming from.
I don’t believe that such a “right” exists as it infringes on the life of another person.
You may be pushing Obama’s “logic” back on him in a sarcastic manner, but I’m not clear on it.
I am always hearing from the left that George Bush has trampled our constitution and our rights..
Well from that statement.. Obama will take the constitution, stick it up our arse.. and light it on fire...
Isn’t it liberals who are always stating that states rights are a ‘myth’?
It is awkward for the PRO-ABORTS. Extending their logic about the right to own guns leads you to the awkward (for them) conclusion that the state has a perfect right to regulate, even eliminate, the “right” to an abortion.
I am reminded that the person who seizes control of the meaning of words has seized control of the debate topic.
During orals for Heller, on Justice, I think Stevens, mused that the Court was free to insert the word “unreasonable” into the restraining clauses, this transforming the Second Amendment into shall not be unreasonably infringed, and the First into shall not make any unreasonable law.
Amendment by redefinition. Chilling and shameful.
Bill Ayers of the terrorist weatherman underground, unrepentant bomber.
Rezco, corrupt financere and tied to crime and terror.
Jeremiah Wright, hater of America (even if he once was a US Marine - I got news for Obama, Benedict Arnold was once a certified American hero before he went bad so don't try and pass off the US Marine thing as a pass for his hate) and an absolute Black Liberation militant,
Louis Farakahn, radical Islamic leader and another hater of America,
The New Black Panther Party ('nuff said),
Hamas, who now endorses Obama and hopes he wins so that the US attitude toward their operations (meaning abject radical Islamic Jihad and terror) will improve.
...and the list goes on.
Obama is the apex of the face of the enemy within.
You have a right to free speech. But you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater (unless there actually is one). You have a right to freely exercise your religion. But if your religion requires you to kill those who are unwilling to convert, you cannot exercise it in that respect.
Yes, the government has a right to constrain your exercise of certain rights. The question is whether or not Sen. Obama supports constraints that have an objective other than keeping you from bringing immediate harm to someone else.
My second undeniable truth about liberalism is that
“liberals” do no promote ANY freedoms except those related to consequence free sexual behavior choices,
in all other issues, they choose the side of totalitarian control.
And just because Article II of the Constitution established the Office of the President, whose to say we need one?
Now, now...let’s not get bitter ; )
Just the beginning.
I paraphrase: Someone’s going to take a piece of your pie so that someone else can have more.
He was trying to frame the immediate issue in terms that some people, who would otherwise approve of BHO’s comment, would better understand.
That doesn’t mean that the poster believes that particular right exists. A rhetorical technique is to re-phrase issues in terms that are meaningful your opponent, even if they are not meaningful to you.
They want government in every room of your house - except the bedroom.
The issue is that he uses variations on “reasonable regulations”, which while sounding like something we can all agree on, really mean something radically different to different people. Our side almost never calls the other on what they mean by “reasonable”, never asking what principles lead to such regulations.
Thanks, he cleared it all up at #27
Feingold and McCain wrote a law SPECIFICALLY restricting political speech.
Great point. Excellent response for lefties saying “keep the gov’t out of our bedrooms”.
Well, how about the bathroom? We have FEDERAL (show me in the Constitution where this one is) laws mandating how much water we can use to flush, for crap’s sake!
The kitchen? Trans-fats anyone?
Every room with a light bulb?
(Got more, FReepers?)
Every right we have gets constrained by the government in some way. We have freedom of speech, but can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
So the fact he said a rather obvious statement doesn’t bother me. However, I would like to know how he would like to the government to constrain the right to bear arms. The whole Constitutional intent suggests that the government’s role in gun regulation should be quite limited.
I have no problem with the following constraints on the right to bear arms:
1. Ban on private ownership of overly destructive weapons that would not be useful in self-defense, such as a grenade.
2. Banning the possession of handguns in places where the danger of assasination is high. You can’t carry a gun when on tour of the White House, for example.
3. Keep children, the mentally incompetent, and those who have show a completely inability to use guns safely from owning guns.
I suspect Obama has more constraints in mind than these limited constraints.
Exactly but for Liberals the constraint only works on the issues that they say .... and if you disagree then maybe Obama will have the federal govt constrain your rights by labeling you a racist, bigot, conservative that is guily of intolerance and hatred and should be stifled for the sake of the government .....
Obama is a socialist tyrant who thinks that he is above the common man so far above that he wil REQUIRE us to do things “For Our own good”...
Be very afraid..
O’Bama is sounding odder and odder every passing day.
Isnt that what the law against the performance of partial-birth abortions is all about? And the laws that require a judge to approve of a minors abortion if there are reasons she cant tell her parents? And laws that mandate clinics go through counseling with a patient before they can perform an abortion on her?
Clearly laws that prevent a person who committed a felony or who has been committed to a mental institution from owning a gun are constraints on their Constitutional right. Do you think these laws are unconstitutional?
Yea Half-White-Non-Wright was a Marine an obtained the high horsepower of PFC which is the grade of E-2 in the Marine Corps after three years of service. “Color that Dud.”
I glad there are Freepers like SJackson and You who are “Men of Honor “ on this site, along with the other top notch freepers.
MrB, it does not, if the person has the ability, the opportunity and places one’s or anothers life in jeopardy.
We do have the right to defend our selves in America, unless I woke up in Russia this morning.
I enjoy it when Obama keeps revealing his true self and marxist/islamic teachings.
If Obama wants our guns, well my answer to him is “Come and Take Them, If You Dare.”
Piss Off A Liberal By Another Gun,
Someone posted the right designation for Obuma and his ilk. “The Enemy From Within.”
Obuma will not be elected for there are more of us Patriotic Americans, who have always loved our country and way of life.
Obama is a demon, who seeks to charm the brain-dead into voting for him.
Here in Alabama we say,” Obuma, It Is Not Going To Happen On Our Watch Boy.”
Don't count on it! When I look at the fact that the ONLY candidates left in the race are all socialists, I am not encouraged with the intelligence of the voters.
For the record, I do NOT believe the Constitution confers abortion rights, SCOTUS notwithstanding.
I threw that one in there to bait our Liberal adversaries who believe abortion IS an inalienable right that should have no constraint whatsoever.
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.