Posted on 10/27/2008 7:18:56 AM PDT by pissant
A 2001 taped interview of Barack Obama discussing the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on redistributing wealth has given fresh ammunition to fans of Joe the Plumber.
The interview -- conducted by Chicago Public Radio while Obama was an Illinois state senator and University of Chicago law professor -- delves into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further so that when "dispossessed peoples" appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.
In the interview, Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a "redistributive change" in its appeals to the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that the Legislature is the place for such change to occur since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society and to that extent as radical as people try 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 has been interpreted," Obama says in the recording.
"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.
(Excerpt) Read more at elections.foxnews.com ...
It’s ABOUT TIME!
BLAST THIS ALL OVER THE PLACE!
I think even most of the conservative
commentators are missing the truly frightening point about Obama’s
comments.
The scary part is not merely that Obama might seek to
redistribute wealth. That happens under the US tax code, to one extent
or another, every day. The frightening point of his comments is that he
thinks that the federal government, including the courts, should be
free of the “constraints” placed upon it by the U.S. Constitution in order to
accomplish its goals.
At best, he’s advocating for the constitution to be rewritten by judicial fiat. At worst he’s hoping it gets shredded.
Does anyone have the AUDIO on it?
This is the other quote requiring serious reportage.
Rush will play it and ask Big Media why they aren't reporting it.
And to Obama, that was a “tragedy”
This is really scary, and I do not think that it will make any difference to his supporters. They drank the kool-aid.
I agree.
This is really scary, and I do not think that it will make any difference to his supporters. They drank the kool-aid.
___________________________________________________________
It will make a difference to the independents, undecideds, and GOP base. I think it may make a difference with the “weak” Hussein supporters......I think they will get weak knees on this.
Him Hussein hard, low, and fast. If he tries to get up.....hit’em again!!!!!!!!!
BINGO! That’s exactly what I thought when I heard this. The point isn’t just about socialism, it’s about his outright disregard for the constitution. I was cursing at the radio at the realization of what he would try to do if elected. He doesn’t believe the government should be constrained, he believes is should be empowered. Watch as his presidency will attempt to bury the idea of natural rights; they put limits on the government, which is a no-no in the Obamanation.
Interesting, since I was thinking “a little stick of dynamite” and you say “BLAST THIS ALL OVER THE PLACE!!”
WHY Oh WHY is all this stuff showing up so late in the game? This , along with a thousand other things that are being unearthed in the closing days, could have been assembled to create a foolproof, seamless package with which to blow Obama out of the water. I can just see the TV ad, with those words quoted.
for a guy who’s supposed to be a “constituional scholar” he seems incredibly stupid. In that clip he drones on about the fact that the Constitution limits the states and the federal govt (tell them what they can not\should not do). And he laments that the constitution is not more prescriptive in what it does. Does he not realize that the founding fathers made provisions for changing\modifying that document with the amendment process. The means by which to change the constitution or modify it already exists.
Never mind the fact that he may be the next president, the fact that he graduated law school, and has taught law is scary enough.
It isn't his supporters we need to convince but the undecideds and the few Republicans(not conservatives)who are voting for him, plus the dems, and they are many, who value the constitution and the freedoms it guarantees us.
This is the best time for it to show up. A little more than a week 'till election gives him very little time to respond, not that he is going to be able to put up much of a defense except for more outright lies and his own words will contradict those lies.
Hell run the interview as the ad.
Beats the hell out of me.
journalism isn’t what it used to be.
At one time they would INVESTIGATE and come up with this stuff SOONER.
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.