|
willo -> RE: I told you he was a Democrat (5/1/2017 4:33:15 PM)
|
It is true that Obama admitted the constitution was often interpreted as, "a charter of negative liberties" -- but when in context I think it's a great statement. The American Founding Fathers and Mothers intended the Constitution to not be a perfect document; it's one that needs amendments as the "American Way Of Life" evolves... to grow as the country does.
Actual statement Obama made in 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.*
And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think 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 coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2008/10/79225/#UZ8HWveY1SEf2xcA.99
*my emphasis
Personally, Trump and Pence and Ryan all scare me in equally but different ways. I'd love Trump out of the People's House, but the thought of Pence stepping into that role makes me sick. The laws he signed while Governor of Indiana are so outrageous... I'm just very glad that the current Governor is working to undo what Pence did.
(Source: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/09/pence-gone-fellow-republicans-undo-his-work/97699694/ )
I think one should have an IQ of over 130 and pass a test on the constitution before even announcing to run for POTUS. If you can't tell us what the constitution says, how can you swear to uphold and defend it? (Or, if you can't tell us what the constitution says, how can you make an intelligent case for amending it?)
|
|
|
|
