Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TornadoAlley3

Here’s the transcript from 2001. Also in a FR post below.

MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement 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 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. 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 the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it 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. And that hasn’t shifted. 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.

MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.

You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.


11 posted on 10/26/2008 6:58:11 PM PDT by gotribe (obama just sucks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: gotribe
It says what the states can’t do to you, it 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.

I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts

Wow. He's a complete Marxist. In his OWN words.

19 posted on 10/26/2008 7:06:29 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: gotribe

This is NOT the same audio, not about redistribution, this audio is about slavery and the constitution, courts etc.


22 posted on 10/26/2008 7:10:26 PM PDT by TornadoAlley3 (John and Sarah are gonna change the plumbing in Washington!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: gotribe

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.

Barrak, I’m sure will venture where supreme court justices
fear to tread, once he has replaced some of the existing
members...accidents do happen.

Commie, no doubt about it.


25 posted on 10/26/2008 7:18:11 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: gotribe
"Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts."


37 posted on 10/26/2008 7:35:09 PM PDT by Brian S. Fitzgerald
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: gotribe
Even without the Supreme Court rulings, Obama would have been served at a lunch counter in Honolulu or New York or Chicago--segregation was a state issue, not country-wide. He implies that the Supreme Court should have seen to it that he'd have money to spend at the lunch counter.

The Founding Fathers operated on the assumption that the right of private property was one of the basic foundations of liberty--Obama is 180 degrees off, in the pure socialist tradition (redistribution of wealth). After all, "property is theft."

38 posted on 10/26/2008 7:35:20 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: gotribe
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.

The picture that came to mind when I read this was of ACORN demonstrating inside banks demanding more affordable mortgages for minorities. A real Rev. Jesse type shakedown.

54 posted on 10/26/2008 7:48:03 PM PDT by Roccus (Someday it'll all make sense.............maybe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: gotribe
the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it 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

And now, for the counterpoint, Ronald Reagan from his farewell address:

"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the people.' 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. 'We the people' are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which 'We the people' tell the government what it is allowed to do. 'We the people' are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past eight years.

"But back in the 1960s, when I began, it seemed to me that we'd begun reversing the order of things--that through more and more rules and regulations and confiscatory taxes, the government was taking more of our money, more of our options, and more of our freedom. I went into politics in part to put up my hand and say, 'Stop.' I was a citizen politician, and it seemed the right thing for a citizen to do.

"I think we have stopped a lot of what needed stopping. And I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts."

62 posted on 10/26/2008 8:07:32 PM PDT by Numbers Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: gotribe

Obama has talked about “Court Packing” where Obama appoints two new justices to the Supreme Court without any current justices resigning.


75 posted on 10/26/2008 8:54:42 PM PDT by Thunder90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: gotribe

bttt


87 posted on 10/26/2008 10:04:34 PM PDT by Hoodat (Obama's only connection to the descendants of American Slaves is that his muslim ancestors sold them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: gotribe; All
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."

91 posted on 10/26/2008 10:13:51 PM PDT by Enchante (The real "bitter clingers" are on the LEFT -- ranting Obamabots clinging to delusions!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: gotribe

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.


92 posted on 10/26/2008 10:14:22 PM PDT by wastedyears (Quiet by nature, standing tall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: gotribe
He's really twisted things around.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth...

I think they have. The Kelo vs. New London CT decision was about redistributing wealth in the form of confiscating private property for non-public desires. It was all about taking wealth from the "wrong" people (typically older people who bought homes many years ago in areas that are worth more today) and giving it to the "right" people (politically connected insiders who stand to profit from redevelopment). A clear example was the neighborhood in West Palm Beach on the intracoastal waterway that still had typical 1970's style Florida homes still occupied by original owners, but now the "dot-com" millionaires and real-estate bubble speculators want a marina to dock their yachts at.

...the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

I hope by that he meant that it is a charter of limited powers, not negative liberties. It documents what specific powers the people and the states cede to the federal government, and states that everything not enumerated stays with the people and the states, not the federal government.

It says what the states can’t do to you, it 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.

No, it states the rights that the people have retained for themselves.

-PJ

120 posted on 10/27/2008 3:54:40 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (You can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to overplay their hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson