Obama has a problem with the Constitution

[billvon 2,435]

>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.

Right - but that's because they don't list any rights to observe. They just once again limit the powers of government and make it clear that it is the people who have the rights, not the government.

The ninth amendment basically says "just because you don't see it here doesn't mean you can't do it." There's nothing in the Constitution about skydiving, but that doesn't mean we don't have the right to skydive. It prevents the government from taking away rights without a good reason.

The tenth amendment says that if there is a power that the government does not have, it devolves to the states or the people. Again, it serves to limit governmental power.

Both are negative statements; lists of powers the government doesn't have and cannot usurp.

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

Agreed. All those amendments listed were things that the federal government could NOT do. The few positive rights (like trial by jury) were a bit in limbo until the Fourteenth came out, which basically said "state governments have to follow the positive rights in the Constitution."

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

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

Yeah, but a lot of that knowledge is case law and the courts have been generous in the constitutional infringements they've allowed.

[airdvr 200]

Quote

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

There's no doubt about it Dave. But I don't need a Harvard sheepskin to know what redistribution of wealth and economic justice mean either.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 200]

Quote

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

Key words here...better education, training, and earn. Aren't those things already available? I don't think he said economic redistribution, he said economic justice. Who do you suppose doesn't have economic justice?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

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.

To a large extent, yes. And if one reads the above quoted excerpt form 2001 independent from today's political rhetoric that is what (then Mr)-Obama said.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I don't think he said economic redistribution, he said economic justice. Who do you suppose doesn't have economic justice?

What do you think "economic justice" means?

Most commonly I've encountered the term with respect to siting polluting industries near low-income areas. Higher income areas rarely have been the location for coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, medical waste incinerators, water pollution, and location of offending industries, e.g., hog farming. The latter two are as common or more commonly rural poor (rather than inner city) issues. (NB: more recent environmental regulations have significantly decreased many/some of these, sometimes at greater cost to the producer.)

The consequences of those citings has been increased incidence of deleterious health effects: asthma, certain cancers (generally fatty tissue ones and certain childhood cancers), and other diseases. Point: there are real, physical consequences. The risk is not distributed ... either.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[airdvr 200]

Quote

Quote

I don't think he said economic redistribution, he said economic justice. Who do you suppose doesn't have economic justice?

What do you think "economic justice" means?

Most commonly I've encountered the term with respect to siting polluting industries near low-income areas. Higher income areas rarely have been the location for coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, medical waste incinerators, water pollution, and location of offending industries, e.g., hog farming. The latter two are as common or more commonly rural poor (rather than inner city) issues. (NB: more recent environmental regulations have significantly decreased many/some of these, sometimes at greater cost to the producer.)

The consequences of those citings has been increased incidence of deleterious health effects: asthma, certain cancers (generally fatty tissue ones and certain childhood cancers), and other diseases. Point: there are real, physical consequences. The risk is not distributed ... either.

VR/Marg

According to the Center for Economic and Social Justice http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/economicjustice-defined.htm
Economic justice, which touches the individual person as well as the social order, encompasses the moral principles which guide us in designing our economic institutions. These institutions determine how each person earns a living, enters into contracts, exchanges goods and services with others and otherwise produces an independent material foundation for his or her economic sustenance. The ultimate purpose of economic justice is to free each person to engage creatively in the unlimited work beyond economics, that of the mind and the spirit.

I don't think that's what Barry was referring to. He was talking about the Civil Rights movement. Economic Justice w/r/t Civil Rights might mean reparations.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.
...

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.

I can't tell when you're being sarcastic sometimes, so, I'll just add this: liberties belong to the PEOPLE, not the government.

The framers of the Constitution never, never, never envisioned the amount of government encroachment that we have today.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 1,649]

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?

Just wondering whether you had made a fuss about it, posted anything about it on a blog, started a thread about it...

...

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

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

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.

Can you link to YOUR complaints when it became known that the government was tapping phones without a warrant and imprisoning people without trial?

...

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

[SpeedRacer 1]

this thread is not about imprisonment or wire tapping.

Regarding the original poster, it seems to me that Obama was saying "This is how it is, the Constitution provides only for this, and not for that, and the Courts are not set up for advancing economic justice."

He simply describes how it is, Nowhere does he say that he has a problem with that system.

So why did the original poster say he has a "problem" with the Constitution?

Obama was saying that the achievment of economic justice can not be done through the courts, which is a statement any conservative would agree with.

There are other ways to go about it, though. And economic justice/redistribution isn't necessarily a bad thing, DEPENDING (and this, I agree, is important) on the methods used to obtain it.
See my post above where Economic Redistribution worked for me (government educational loan). It didn't turn me into a Commie.

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

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

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.

So, then you agree with what Obama said. He said that the Constitution does not say what the govt can do on your behalf. (he doesn't say he has a problem with that fact.)

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

[billvon 2,435]

>I'll just add this: liberties belong to the PEOPLE, not the government.

Right. And that's the primary point of the Bill of Rights - a list of liberties that the government may not infringe upon.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

Can you link to YOUR complaints when it became known that the government was tapping phones without a warrant and imprisoning people without trial?

that's not the subject here

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

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

So, then you agree with what Obama said. He said that the Constitution does not say what the govt can do on your behalf. (he doesn't say he has a problem with that fact.)

i believe that he does have a problem with that. i got that impression from listening to the entire interview, not just reading what was posted here. he says that the constitution doesn't state what the government "must" do. its no secret that obama thinks that the government should provide for people. its one of the basics of liberalism. i don't agree with it, and i don't think the framers of our constitution believed that either. i also think that when he talks about economic justice, he's refering to reparations for slavery. i don't believe in that either.

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

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

i also think that when he talks about economic justice, he's refering to reparations for slavery.

This right here is complete conjecture on your part.

Hey, maybe by "economic justice" he means to herd us all into work camps!!

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

[TrophyHusband 0]

so what if its conjecture, thats what i highly suspect he means. by looking at everything he's said and done, and to a lesser extent, who he's hitched his wagon to in the past, one can put together a picture of what his world view is. in listening to the interview, he doesn't use the word "reparations", but its definately not a stretch to think thats what he's talking about. add that into what we already know about his world view, it fits in nicely.

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

[billvon 2,435]

> add that into what we already know I believe about his world view, it fits in nicely.

Of course it does. However, using your imagination to create a hypothetical speech, and then believing _that_, isn't all that useful. With such an approach anyone can be said to support anything.

[TrophyHusband 0]

where have i created a hypothetical speech? there's a link to it in the first post. the speech is real, or did i just imagine the words i heard from him?

you may think he was talking about something different, i don't. when assessing a candidate, i don't take all of the information i learn about him or her as individual facts independant of each other. i put them all together to get an idea of who the candidate actually is. i believe i'm pretty accurate in my overall assessment of obama. i'm sure you think i'm not. reguardless of whether i'm right or wrong about what he meant by economic justice, its highly unlikely he will ever mention reparations. its likely he won't even mention economic justice, but he probably still believes in it. what i'm sure we can agree on is that he will appoint supreme court justices that share his world view, even if we don't agree on what his world view actually is. with democratic control of the house and senate, he will have no problem getting very liberal judges appointed. i don't want to see a liberal supreme court. i would rather see a moderate to conservative supreme court.

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

[billvon 2,435]

>where have i created a hypothetical speech?

You admitted that your reinterpretation was conjecture and was not supported by what he said.

> its likely he won't even mention economic justice, but he probably still believes in it.

So do I. I believe that if a man is defrauded by another, he has the right to recover damages.

> i would rather see a moderate to conservative supreme court.

That's fine, and is a separate issue.

[marks2065 0]

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.

you are correct but at least they earned it instead of getting a handout (welfare) from the government.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

>You admitted that your reinterpretation was conjecture and was not supported by what he said.


I believe that if a man is defrauded by another, he has the right to recover damages.

my interpretation was supported by what he said. i didn't pull this out of thin air, and the thought never crossed my mind until i heard this interview. i don't look for reasons to dislike obama. i just see things the way i see them, as does everyone else. at this point, i'm looking for things i like about obama. i would rather not spend the next 4 to 8 years pissed off. i hope i'm wrong about him, but i don't think so.

in the case of reparations, the people who did the defrauding are dead, as are the defrauded. i realize that there are white people who are still reaping the benifits off of the step up that their forefathers took on the backs of the black man, but how do you determine who gets paid and who has to pay? do you have to do geneology of everyone and base the amount someone owes or is owed based one how many lines can be traced back to slavery? that will never happen.

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

[billvon 2,435]

>but how do you determine who gets paid and who has to pay?

Anyone who was directly defrauded can recover damages. For example, if you were denied schooling based on your race, you may be able to recover damages from the state that denied you education. If they denied your _father_ education, then no, you are not entitled to anything.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

>I'll just add this: liberties belong to the PEOPLE, not the government.

Right. And that's the primary point of the Bill of Rights - a list of liberties that the government may not infringe upon.

Alexander Hamilton 1788:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[marks2065 0]

Quote

> add that into what we already know I believe about his world view, it fits in nicely.

Of course it does. However, using your imagination to create a hypothetical speech, and then believing _that_, isn't all that useful. With such an approach anyone can be said to support anything.

you are correct that we don't know excactly what Obama meant, but if we put together Obama's relationships and actions in the past we conclude that he wants to take from the rich and give to the poor, and he will do it with the radical groups he has been associated with. since we have nothing else to use to base our conclussions on this will have to do.

Maybe if Obama voted yes or no 130 times instead of present we could better understand his direction and how much influence his associations actually have on him. I cant believe so many people want to vote for this guy and have absolutely no idea what he really stands for. Wouldn't it be a smart thing to know what the candidate is about and how he/she will govern by their trac record before they get elected? and not find out after they get elected?