Obama has a problem with the Constitution

[airdvr 200]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

I've heard enough from his past now to know who he is.

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.

There should be more?

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.

Read reparations

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.

Maybe he needs to re-visit. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

These are negative liberties?

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.

Welcome Barack Obamarx. God Bless Amerika.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DSE 3]

If I understand you correctly, you'd support the extreme power given big business by a corrupt Congress, Senate, and their ass-licking lobbyists is just? And beneficial to the general welfare of the American public?
that their abuse of laws and programs created for the general welfare of the American public have led us to the worst economic crisis in US history is good for our posterity?
And that the actions and behaviors of corrupt politicians over the past couple decades have been in accordance with the intent of the Constitution of the USA?

[kallend 1,679]

How do you feel about torture, imprisonment without trial, and tapping Americans' phones without a warrant?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 200]

Easy there big fella. It's rough out there but it is by no means the worst economic crisis in US history. You're really buying into the media portrayal aren't you.

There's been worse than this.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SpeedRacer 1]

The guy who put this youtube thing together put his own twist on Obama's words.

What Obama was saying was that it was a tragedy that the Civil Rights Movement focused only on courts to achieve their goals. When actually grassroots organizations would be more effective in bringing about economic change to the disadvantaged.

He said that the government court system wasn't set up for achieving that, and he also said that the Constitution only guarantees you the right NOT to be intruded upon by the government.

Nowhere does he imply that he DISAPPROVES of that system.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[airdvr 200]

Quote

How do you feel about torture, imprisonment without trial, and tapping Americans' phones without a warrant?

Maybe I'm missing the point....you're saying that 2 wrongs make a right? Or that it's OK as long as it's a Dem?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 200]

Quote

The guy who put this youtube thing together put his own twist on Obama's words.

What Obama was saying was that it was a tragedy that the Civil Rights Movement focused only on courts to achieve their goals. When actually grassroots organizations would be more effective in bringing about economic change to the disadvantaged.

He said that the government court system wasn't set up for achieving that, and he also said that the Constitution only guarantees you the right NOT to be intruded upon by the government.

Nowhere does he imply that he DISAPPROVES of that system.

Wrong! The youtube was only so some who can't read would have something to refer too The written stuff is from the transcript. http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/thread/2584303.aspx

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

the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf


Define Redistribution of Wealth and how the SCOTUS would go about it. What is a negative liberty? What shoud the federal government do on your behalf?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DSE 3]

Quote

Easy there big fella. It's rough out there but it is by no means the worst economic crisis in US history. You're really buying into the media portrayal aren't you.

There's been worse than this.

Remove the social programs and government insurance from the discussion;
When? The only reason it's not as bad as the depression of the 1930s is because we learned a thing or two.
That aside, how much worse do you need it to become? The IMF states that there is a one-in-four chance that by the time this is over, the impact will be greater than the Great Depression, only this time it's a global impact rather than predominantly a local one.
Finally...who's buying into the media portrayal?

Dem's don't need to do this sort of hatchet job on McSame, because he's beyond attack. Why kick a loser when he's down?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

The guy who put this youtube thing together put his own twist on Obama's words.

What Obama was saying was that it was a tragedy that the Civil Rights Movement focused only on courts to achieve their goals. When actually grassroots organizations would be more effective in bringing about economic change to the disadvantaged.

He said that the government court system wasn't set up for achieving that, and he also said that the Constitution only guarantees you the right NOT to be intruded upon by the government.

Nowhere does he imply that he DISAPPROVES of that system.

Wrong! The youtube was only so some who can't read would have something to refer too The written stuff is from the transcript. http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/thread/2584303.aspx

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

the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf


Define Redistribution of Wealth and how the SCOTUS would go about it. Obama is saying that the SCOTUS was NOT the way to go about it

What is a negative liberty? The Bill of Rights are Negative Liberties. They are Negative Liberties because they list the areas in which the Federal Government is NOT allowed to intrude on you. As opposed to a Right in which you are entitled to some product or service to be provided to you from the government.

What shoud the federal government do on your behalf? Obama only states that the Constitution does not have provisions for the Government to do things on your behalf. He does not say this is wrong & should be changed.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

How do you feel about torture, imprisonment without trial, and tapping Americans' phones without a warrant?

Maybe I'm missing the point....you're saying that 2 wrongs make a right? Or that it's OK as long as it's a Dem?

No. He's saying THREE wrongs make a right. "Bush trampled on rights FIRST." It's the new version of "Clinton got a blowjob."

And I hate to break it to people, but ALL presidents have problems with the Constitution. When you are th emost powerful person on earth, you want more. And that damned piece of paper gets in the way.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[airdvr 200]

Quote

Quote

Easy there big fella. It's rough out there but it is by no means the worst economic crisis in US history. You're really buying into the media portrayal aren't you.

There's been worse than this.

Remove the social programs and government insurance from the discussion;
When? The only reason it's not as bad as the depression of the 1930s is because we learned a thing or two.
That aside, how much worse do you need it to become? The IMF states that there is a one-in-four chance that by the time this is over, the impact will be greater than the Great Depression, only this time it's a global impact rather than predominantly a local one.
Finally...who's buying into the media portrayal?

Dem's don't need to do this sort of hatchet job on McSame, because he's beyond attack. Why kick a loser when he's down?

I know you're young and impressionable. I remember the Carter years, and it was much worse than this. Or perhaps the 70's when it got so bad Nixon imposed the wage and price freeze.

Finally, this is no hatchet job. It's Barry's own words from 7 years ago.

Doesn't that sand you've got your head buried in get in your eyes?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SpeedRacer 1]

Here's a link http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=29792 to an explanation. There is also a link where you can download the FULL audio of the discussion.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 2,473]

>the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

Yes, the Constitution primarily enumerates negative personal liberties. Let's look at a quick list of liberties:

1: Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of reli-
gion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a re-
dress of grievances.

Negative liberty. Says what the government cannot do.

2: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
NOT be infringed.

Negative liberty. Says what the government cannot do.

3: NO SOLDIER shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a
manner to be prescribed by law.

Negative liberty. Says what the government cannot do.

4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
SHALL NOT be violated; and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particu-
larly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.

Negative liberty. Says what the government cannot do.

5: NO PERSON SHALL BE HELD to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in
the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to
be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled
in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation.

Negative liberty. Says what the government cannot do.

6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused SHALL ENJOY the right
to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State
and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Positive liberty. Says what the government must do to provide us with certain rights.

7: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury SHALL BE
preserved, and NO FACT tried by a jury, SHALL BE otherwise
reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to
the rules of the common law.

Mixed; lists what the government must do, and what it must not do.

8: Excessive bail SHALL NOT be required, nor excessive fines im-
posed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.


Negative liberty. Says what the government cannot do.

9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, SHALL
NOT be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.


Negative liberty. Says what the government cannot do.

10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitu-
tion, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.

The ultimate negative liberty. We have all the rights the Constitution does not list.

It will be refreshing to have a president who has actually read the Constitution.

[airdvr 200]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The guy who put this youtube thing together put his own twist on Obama's words.

What Obama was saying was that it was a tragedy that the Civil Rights Movement focused only on courts to achieve their goals. When actually grassroots organizations would be more effective in bringing about economic change to the disadvantaged.

He said that the government court system wasn't set up for achieving that, and he also said that the Constitution only guarantees you the right NOT to be intruded upon by the government.

Nowhere does he imply that he DISAPPROVES of that system.

Wrong! The youtube was only so some who can't read would have something to refer too The written stuff is from the transcript. http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/thread/2584303.aspx

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

the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf


Define Redistribution of Wealth and how the SCOTUS would go about it. Obama is saying that the SCOTUS was NOT the way to go about it What is a negative liberty? The Bill of Rights are Negative Liberties. They are Negative Liberties because they list the areas in which the Federal Government is NOT allowed to intrude on you. As opposed to a Right in which you are entitled to some product or service to be provided to you from the government. What shoud the federal government do on your behalf? Obama only states that the Constitution does not have provisions for the Government to do things on your behalf. He does not say this is wrong & should be changed.

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

He thinks the SCOTUS was victorious in bringing rights to dispossessed people, but failed because it did not require redistribution of wealth and economic justice. WHether that's the place to do it or not is not important...HE THINKS IT SHOULD HAPPEN. Wake up!

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

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

He thinks the SCOTUS was victorious in bringing rights to dispossessed people, but failed because it did not require redistribution of wealth and economic justice.

Wrong. He identifies where THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT failed, and where is succeeded. He is saying that they shouldn't have relied solely on running to the courts for achieving such things as economic change. He doesn't say that the Supreme Court didn't do what IT should have done. He merely defined what the Supreme Court cannot be used for effectively.

Quote

WHether that's the place to do it or not is not important...HE THINKS IT SHOULD HAPPEN. Wake up!

Economic redistribution also happens whenever people, through better education, job training, and encouraging entrepreneurship, are able to get out there and earn a better living. oh the horror.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[speuci 0]

Quote

He thinks the SCOTUS was victorious in bringing rights to dispossessed people, but failed because it did not require redistribution of wealth and economic justice. WHether that's the place to do it or not is not important...HE THINKS IT SHOULD HAPPEN. Wake up!

This IS a tragedy. Yes the Court recognized certain civil rights, but without an ability to improve one's economic situation, one cannot assert these rights. Thus, the recognition of these rights was, and still is illusory to many.

The Tragedy is recognizing that these rights are still infringed upon today and the victims largely lack either the money or the knowledge to enter courts and vindicate these rights.

And I'm amazed at how many people hinge on word *redistribution*, when all it means is a tweak to existing graduated tax schedules and a few mroe dollars in social programs that will benefit society at large.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Here's my own example of redistribution of wealth achieved through something other than the Supreme Court.

When I was 28 I got a low-interest Government loan for paying for graduate school. A loan which I wouldn't be required to pay off until sometime after I graduated from the 2 year program I was in. So I got my Masters Degree in Molecular Biology.

After I got my degree, I was able to re-enter the workforce and get a salary more than twice what I made before getting the degree.

That Government Loan caused a (gasp) Redistribution of Wealth into my wallet, meaning I could afford a car & a nicer place to live.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 2,473]

>That Government Loan caused a (gasp) Redistribution of Wealth into my wallet . . .

Yep! Me too. I got a student loan that allowed me to attend the second most expensive school in the US. That in turn allowed me to get a job that let me pay back the loan within five years. I guess that makes me (and the 80% of the people in my class who got similar loans) socialist.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Only if you drink fluoridated water.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[DSE 3]

Uhh...I'm probably as old, if not older than you. I too, remember the Carter years. And remember them somewhat differently.
Odd that what you remember is different than what US history demonstrates, and what you remember is worse than what any major economic watchgroup remembers.

Economic depression...I'd happily challenge you to ever point to a period in your life that remotely approaches the world I come from. You don't stand a prayer. We see it on the rez much earlier than you're gonna see it in Whitebread, Ohio. I'm one of those that benefit from "redistribution." And am grateful for programs set up by those damn liberals. Even though I was daft enough to be conservative in my younger years.

More to the point...I'm not the one buying into interpretations of what someone says someone else thinks the speaker might have meant. Maybe.

The majority of Americans know what's good for them, and in just over a week our country will have taken it's first step forward to better times. Start the bitching early, cuz the 'Pub's have lost this one.
thank heaven. (or W...)

[akarunway 1]

Quote

If I understand you correctly, you'd support the extreme power given big business by a corrupt Congress, Senate, and they're ass-licking lobbyists is just? And beneficial to the general welfare of the American public?
that their abuse of laws and programs created for the general welfare of the American public have led us to the worst economic crisis in US history is good for our posterity?
And that the actions and behaviors of corrupt politicians over the past couple decades have been in accordance with the intent of the Constitution of the USA?

I'd bet my as he's all for it. In the name of keeping use safe don't ya know. No thanks. I keep myself safe.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[livendive 8]

Without even getting past the thread title, you'll have to forgive me for assuming that a magna cum laude from Harvard Law who has worked as a professor of constitutional law just might have a better understanding of the Constitution than you do.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Krunner360 0]

Does one man alone run a country?

I'm way out of my league here.

[lawrocket 3]

Bill:

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that the states can give protections if they want. It doesn't mean that the Federal Government observes these rights.

recall - this is before the 14th Amendment incorporated these rights to the States. The States were not bound by these rules before then.

It's always important to view these in the context of when they were written. It also means that the Bill of Rights doesn't abrogate other rights listed in the body of the Consititution (like Privileges and Immunities). Unless the 9th said what it said it could be construed as those Amendments being the only rights given.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

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.

i always thought that the constitution's main objective was to protect the people from the goverment, not to provide for the people.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com