News

Rant

Obama Hates the Constitution: A Reminder

Posted 42 months ago|32 comments|1,948 views
Written by
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
Barack Obama, 2001

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 invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would 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 OK .

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think 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's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally 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.

Yes, Barry, you could sit at the lunch counter and eat, as you say, as long as you can pay for it. It didn't say that you could go in and force the lunch lady to bring you a plate for free, simply because she had a plate and you didn't. But that's not the scary part.

The scary part is the part in bold letters. "Break free from the Constitutional Restraints?" Is that why you became a Constitutional Law Professor at University of Chicago? I remember a while back when you said "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." Does it really? Does being a Constitution professor really mean that you respect the Constitution?

You know, it has been said that no one knows the Bible better than the Devil himself. He has to, if he's going to use that age old document against the very people who espouse it. Plus, he's always looking for a loophole, a way to twist the words into what he wants it to say.

That's why I think you became a Constitutional Law scholar, Barry O. So you can "break free" from the constraints the founding fathers placed (intentionally) on the role of government in people's lives. Looking for the loopholes much? What the government might think they are doing FOR the people might just as well be perceived as what the government is doing TO people. Is that the fundamental flaw you were looking for, or perhaps something that could be exploited?

I have had more than a few of my esteemed colleagues make the statement, "You either love the Constitution or you don't. You tenthers and second amendment nuts just pick the parts you like and want to do away with parts you don't like. You either take the Constitution as a whole, or admit you are a Constitution hating freedom hater."

It seems like those guys are in good company with our President. He hates the Constitution too.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
42 months ago:
Ootb,
Come one, are you going to spend your valuable time surfing back through the web to the McCain-Palin campaign days for every old piece of neo-conservative fringe baloney that was ever raised against then candidate Barack Obama? Are you going to jump on the Trump Train Birther movement too and bring back all those old, out-dated, already disproven twisted half truths?

If so, have at it, I'll be right there in your face with counter points and reality checks.

So, let's dance. Be sure that on the one hand, I'd rather just ignore the white noise of your post, unfortunately, in this age of the anyone can publish anything in any context with now accountability, I don't want a single person reading this utterly decontextualized rehash of the past from WND.

In a democracy, with freedom of speech, I guess you have the right to call the President what ever you like. I would argue you erode your case, however, that you respect the Constitution or this democracy when you don't show that basic respect to which he has done exactly nothing criminal to suggest he's not entitled to the respect afforded our democratically elected president.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
42 months ago: Would you care to elaborate on how anything I wrote above has been disproven?

And are you aware that the term neo-conservative does not refer to far right-wing conservatives, but rather to the liberals who drifted toward conservatism in backlash to the social liberation movements of the '60s and '70s? In other words, liberal defectors who didn't like the communists and moral decay prevalent during those times. Thus the term neo (new) conservatives. They are still more liberal than they are conservative.

You guys use the term neocon because it reminds you of another term, neoNazi, which means, you guessed it, "new Nazi". Just thought you might like to know.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
42 months ago: Funny thing is, the neo conservatives, the ones who defected from the liberal side to become more conservative, are the ones who demanded the war in Iraq. They came up with the term paleo-conservatives, a disparaging term for the conservatives already in place. The "new" conservatives are for an aggressive international policy, and socialist programs.

John F McManus, 1993: "These neocons have taken over the conservative wing of the Republican party. And they have succeeded in doing so to the degree that the word 'conservative' is now being applied to individuals and ideas that are, in fact, liberal (in the leftist sense), socialist, and totally undeserving of the conservative label."
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
42 months ago: As for this statement and the "redistribution of wealth" angle, I am quite certain after spending the last two hours researching and reading back through all of the material on this quotation that I don't have the legal expertise to properly explain his comment about redistribution. I can say that the "redistribution" aspect had zero to do with the Rush Limbaugh transmuted transcript latched onto by the McCain-campaign and portrayed then candidate Obama as being in favor of wealth distribution which was not the case. If you are of the legal mind to read some contrary information to the Limbaugh transcript and all of the legal cases which had to do with things such as states taking away a physician's license to practice and a Texas lawsuit where parents were suing the state of Texas for harming their children for not equally distributing the state tax dollars to all children of the state but, rather, giving some schools more money.

I think many people who live outside of Chicago are not aware that the University of Chicago is not a poor, inner city, run down community college for has beens. The University of Chicago has more Nobel Laureates on faculty than any university in the world and is, by far, one of the most rigorous universities in the nation. It is on par with any of the Ivy League schools on the East Coast. President Obama was and is one of the most well-educated people to serve our nation in generations. What possible points do you hope to score by belittling that? Would we be far better off with Sarah Palin in office?

Instead of wasting your time and ours rehashing disproved campaign rhetoric of four years ago, why don't you write us a "what if rave" that would tell us all about how amazing our nation would be right now if the Honorable Senator from Arizona, John McCain, and the former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, were into their third year. Now that might be something entertaining to read.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
42 months ago: I would argue your points, but I really didn't see one. I don't see where the prestige afforded the university he lectured at has anything to do with post. I don't see where McCain has anything to do with it either, except as a tool to shift focus from the thesis.

Basically what you have said is that you can't argue with the facts as I have presented them, so you'll muddy the waters with unrelated topics.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
42 months ago: Yep, I read through your comments for a fourth time, and I still couldn't find anything worth arguing, all rather vague, no counterpoints whatsoever, and no reality checks. The reality is in the man's words, not how you can spin them. Taken in context, they say what they say.

A rehashing? It's in the title of the rant.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
42 months ago: Ok, so I'll do my best then...

When Obama was interviewed by Chicago Public radio in 2001, he was being asked about the Civil Rights movement and the rulings of the Supreme Court at the time.

A lot of people at the time, of the Civil Rights Movement, thought that Supreme Court was either too liberal or too conservative depending on their stance on the issues of Civil Rights.

During that interview which was drudged up by the Drudge Report, Obama, then a State Senator, used the legal term "redistributive change" in reference to certain actions of the court at the time. In particular he spoke about a growing concept in the law where the courts were effecting social policy (something most conservatives abhor as I understand it) by either acting or not acting when it came to the government's ability to control either its money or its perceived possessions. Two example he used were in reference to whether the government should be able to revoke a physician's license to practice for matters unrelated to his ability to be physician such as failure to pay taxes or what ever. The example which made more sense to me in using the term and the term "redistribution of wealth" however, was in the case he described as the 1971 case of The San Antonio School District vs. Rodriguez. In this case, the Supreme Court chose not to rule on the appeal of the case where the state court ruled it was fine for the school district to disperse city and county funds to what ever schools in what ever amounts they saw fit rather than equally or failry dividing the money up per student. So, in effect, the contention of the parents suing was that their children were being harmed because the tax money was not being divided fairly – which was referred to as a redistribution of wealth. Ironically, it's a redistribution of wealth if you take tax money from poor communities and give it to rich communities in the same district, isn't it?
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
42 months ago: No where in the entire interview avaiable without the fancy editorialists added to the YouTube™ video here does Obama show any disdain for the Constitution. You can twist his words however you want, and I can then twist yours back. Why must there be a reliance on twisting of the truth? Why? Why not, instead, just use the facts. Back when I first returned to Rant Rave, I had hoped to prompt people away from this kind of partisan rhetoric which was the fuel of the now ending Beck show. Partly because, there doesn't seem to be anymore anyway to prove the truth. I can give you the link to the actual transcript of the radio show, you can read it and still agree with whomsoever you wish to agree. Or you could read it and go, "Wow, actually Obama is not showing any disdain for the Constution, in fact he's suggesting that this amazing document gave a society room to evolve and reinterpret and change based on new enlightenment which truly makes it one of the best Constitutions ever written." Which way you go is your own choice. So, instead I tried very unsuccessfully to get people to focus on motivation. What was the motivation of the person who made your graphic of Obama tearing up the Constitution? What was Drudge's motivation for twisting these words from a radio program on the Civil Rights into something about Obama hating the Constitution because he supposedly believes that all the nation's wealth should be redistributed? Well, they were both motivated by their desire to keep him from being elected.

Why did they not want him elected? That's an interesting question that no conservative was ever really answer other than to spew partisan rhetoric that, I'm sorry, brings us to a standstill in debate because there are two sides both of merit (like it or not), and they are opposing. Some people have to be in the middle seeking solutions and compromises or we'd never get anywhere.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
42 months ago: Oops, I forgot to past in the link to the actual radio broadcast you can listen to it yourself and see where Obama ever says anything that indicates he either hates the Constitution or that he believes in redistribution of wealth as a principle.

http://www.wbez.org/audio_library/ram/od...

So, I will ask this of you OotB, what was your motivation for this post? Are you admitting that you're admitting you wanted to rehash long disproven partisan rhetoric?

Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
42 months ago: I cannot admit to that because (a) it isn't partisan rhetoric and (b) it hasn't been disproved. The part you are referring to, about wealth redistribution, was partisan rhetoric, and Obama was all for it, and the Republicans jumped all over it.

But that is a red herring I see flopping about on deck, because this post isn't about financial redistribution. This post is about Obama saying that the civil rights movement, community organizers, and the Warren Court failed in the aspect of not being able to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers". This is about him saying the Constitution is "fundamentally flawed".

This post will always be about that fact, no matter how much you want to make it about something else, like healthcare or financial redistribution.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
42 months ago: Great post, Box - as usual. And it is that very (what? disdain? dislike? hatred?) of the constitution that BHO has exhibited so often that convinces me that as a 2nd term - i.e. lame-duck and thus utterly concerned with anything but his "legacy" - president Obama will forge ahead with his grand plan to introduce fundamental change in our political system. And it is clear from recent events that he will do this BY ANY/ALL MEANS AVAILABLE TO HIM! He does not need the congress as long as there is no one to stop him from legislating by executive order and bureaucratic regulations. If he gets to appoint so much as a single additional associate justice he will be able to do anything he pleases without fear of retribution by SCOTUS.

Such unchecked power will most certainly lead to conflict. That is why after I post this I will be packing my vehicle for the approx. hundred mile trip to attend an Appleseed Weekend given by the Revolutionary War Veterans Association. I will be trained to shoot to the same standards as Army recruits. Not to project force - I am too old/infirm to be a grunt - but to be able to defend my "tribe's" freehold during the dark days following the initiation of hostilities. When the war starts, civil order will vanish quickly. I want to be able to defend/protect hearth and home, kith and kin. That means acquiring skills I do not presently possess.

Bad Cyborg, 10%er.
You are welcome to bury your head if you desire. It only makes your buttockal area a MUCH better target.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
42 months ago: George W. Bush was the king of legislating from the Executive Branch, give me the links where you ranted about this in the past.

President Obama has already appointed two justices that are more conservative than he apparently is. How ironic.

I wouldn't mind all of this criticism of the current President if it (a) were paired with equal criticism of his predecessor and therefore clear that it's not just partisan rhetoric by definition, and (b) people really had legitimate complaints / objections to the President's core ideas – which I never read. What I read are all too often things some person has said he said out of context or just plain factually in error. He was an open book when he ran. He published his entire vision on a website for people to read. You will notice no one read it because it was pretty hard to argue with him.

I keep using this case in point because, to me, it's pretty clear cut and dry.

As a self-professed conservative, do you disagree with this statement.

"Every American should be entitled to the same health care as every member of Congress."

To me, this is a very bold and powerful statement. Barack Obama was never in favor of nationalized health care, never in favor of the health care plan that emerged and got named after him by neo-conservatives. He was in favor of every American having access to the same health care plan as every member of Congress.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
42 months ago: I wasn't a blogger when Bush was President, but didn't care much for the man. I felt he was leading us down pretty much the same path as Obama. If you will look over my my contributions here, you will see that I am a non-partisan conservative. I have stated over and over again that both parties work for the same people, and it ain't us.

So hang up the "partisan stooge" accusations. Either deal with the content of the post, or admit there isn't much you can say to refute it.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
42 months ago: CR wrote

"Barack Obama was never in favor of nationalized health care"

This is what Obama said:

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan."

Hmmm, who should I believe?
42 months ago: OOTB,

As an outsider, I think what CR is trying to say is that truth has a TIME LIMIT... and if you call a liar on his crap, it is a "card up the sleeve" that can be played to "trump" any LOGIC being used... this is the same card "they" are trying to play on the relevancy of the CONSTITUTION.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
42 months ago: A non-partisan conservative. Interesting choice of words. You belong to no party, but are conservative in your values? But you are not willing to call yourself an independent? From that, I would think you long for the days of real conservatism and the real Republican Party? – just for clarification sake

What path in common do George W. Bush and Barack Obama share? I don't see any commonality, but would really like to see your take. Off the top of my head, I can think of many ways in which Obama has worked hard to put the powers of the Presidency back in perspective of a three branch government, something George W. Bush did not, which, if anything, disputes your post premise.

And, now, I have dealt with the content of the post. I have given you the actual transcript in its context, I've summarized the actual case in which the notion of the redistribution of wealth arises. So now what?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
42 months ago: Well on a personal note I'll give my voting history.

1984 Reagan
1984 Reagan
1988 Declined
1992 Perot
1996 Perot
2000 Bush
2004 Declined
2008 Held my nose and voted McCain

To simply say "independent" could mean anything. It sounds like a cop-out, or a popular catch phrase. But yes, you are correct, I would love to see a return to the real fiscally conservative values and smaller, less intrusive government.

And again, I don't see where you get the notion that this post is in any way about redistribution of wealth. I made no comments about the redistributive angle, only the "getting around the Constitution" slant.
42 months ago: Obama hates the Declaration of Independence too.

Sum...................

What outta said!
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
42 months ago: RSG, I see you haven't changed a bit, which, I guess is a good thing.
The Cypress Gang
The Cypress Gang
42 months ago: Watch out ColoRanter. Red could probably take you to task if he chose to come down off the make believe hillbilly persona.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
42 months ago: Agreed.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
42 months ago: I don't understand the premise of the rant. The top tax rates averaged above 60% ever since 1918. does that mean that all of those presidents were violating the constitution? Why is Obama accused of destroying the constitution simply because he wants to return the tax structure that it was during Clinton's term? This was the last time we had a balanced budget and anticipated actually paying off the National Debt.

Why wasn't Bush excoriated for destroying the Constitution when he actually did shred it with his signing statements that eliminated the separation of powers and his philosophy of the "Unitary Executive"? Why wasn't his patriot act which took away many rights protested?

The entire argument is silly. The right wants to deny citizenship to people born in the country, deny women the rights to their own bodies, and deny the rights of collective bargaining. Why is balancing the budget unconstitutional?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
42 months ago: The premise of the rant is that Obama stated that the Constitution is a fundamentally flawed instrument, and that the Warren commission failed to break free from the Constitutional constraints put in place by the founding fathers.

All the rest of the stuff is smoke and mirrors. All I was commenting on is Obama's disdain for the Constitution and the fact that he probably became a Constitutional law scholar to find ways of getting around it.
The Cypress Gang
The Cypress Gang
42 months ago: ColoRanter? Am I confused? Surfing back? Not likely that you have EVER posted a word about President(s) Bush while riding the web wave.
The Cypress Gang
The Cypress Gang
42 months ago: As RED would say.....

Independent my lilly white butt....
The Cypress Gang
The Cypress Gang
42 months ago: Hey RED?

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
42 months ago: Perhaps Obama is correct and that all of his studying led him to the truth that the Constitution is a living, changing, evolving, document and is not mired in the past.

The founding fathers knew that the Constitution was flawed because it could not be perfect and account for all possibilities that might come up in the future so they intentionally made many aspects vague and allowed for growth and change.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
42 months ago: Well sure they allowed for change, they included Article V, the amendment process. They even included the first ten Amendments. But the fundamental part of the Constitution is the actual Constitution, and that's the part Obama said is flawed.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
42 months ago: Let's contrast this unsubstanitated charge that Obama hates the Constitution with the words of an icon of the religious right - 2008 Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Now there's somebody who 'hates' the Constitution because it's all to secular and doesn't pay homage and/or recognize the supremacy of conservative Christian evangelicalism.

Now as Al said, the Constitution is a living document, and it's been amended numerous times. Unlike the Bible or other religious texts, it's not a document of fables that's written in imaginary stone.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
42 months ago: I agree with your statements about Huckabee, and it's probably why Huckabee didn't stand as much of a chance of being elected as even Pat Robertson.

But Obama's statement that the Constitution is "fundamentally flawed" lends substantiation to the charges. By mere definition of the terms:
fundamental: Of or relating to the foundation
flawed: Blemished, damaged, or imperfect in some way. Containing a mistake, weakness, or fault.

So he's saying that the very foundation of the Constitution is imperfect. Something that is fundamentally flawed cannot be fixed or patched (amended). Something that is flawed all the way to the base can only be remade.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
42 months ago: Oh no, there's plenty of religious right Huckabee's in the United States Congress and their agenda to trump the Constitution with their evangelical Dominioinst agenda is still on track. For example, here's an article with a text of a proposed resolution to make citizens of ALL religions to reflect on the Ten Commandments. Never mind that most evangelicals disregard the 4th Commandment and that the GOP often gets caught engaging in family values hypocrisy with respect to the 7th Commandment.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodd...

Now as for Obama and his 'hatred' of the Constitution, let's quote him on the subject of the Constitution:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23690567/pri...

"Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time."

So, does it sound like he hates the Constitution or the fact that it took some 200 years to start living up to the ideals of equality expressed in the Constitution?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
42 months ago: I don't think it's a matter of quantification. Because someone hates it just as much for different reasons, does it make Obama hate it less? Many people don't understand that the Constitution is not an instrument to make people behave in a manner more consistent with their own personal morals and ideals, it is fundamentally an instrument to ensure the exact opposite. Fundamentally, it prevents the government from interfering in peoples' personal lives, and limits the power of government.

It is that "fundamental flaw" that Obama hates.

As for your quote, from March of 2008, I think I'll pretty much ignore the teleprompter spin doctoring and damage control. I think I'll go with what he said from the heart and off the cuff when he was an up and coming go-getter.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.