ARS on Twitter
RSS
Obama – Redistributive “Change” We Can Believe In
Posted by Duncan on October 27th, 2008
Some Constitutional brilliance from The One Who Will Redistribute The Wealth (but its not socialism, or communism)™:
Translation [ace]: As lefties are suggesting idiotic interpretations, and even some on the right are getting it wrong, here’s what he’s saying:
1. The Supreme Court never considered “redistribution of wealth” or “economic justice” among the guarantees provided to citizens.
2. Even the Warren Court was not “radical” enough to do so — to impose real change on the nation.
3. The courts have generally provided negative constraints on the government rather than positive obligations the government owes to its citizens (specifically, here, such as economic justice and redistribution of wealth).
4. Therefore, it is a “tragedy” that the civil rights movement became so courts-focused, because it limited what redress they could actually obtain — and it took attention away from the “community organizing” efforts which could assemble “coalitions of power” (political power, that is) to actually achieve “redistributive change.” Such change simply could not be had in the courts, still laboring under the “constraints” imposed by the Founding Fathers.
5. “And in some ways we still suffer from that.”
Darn that Constitution! Don’t worry though, Obama will nominate strict constructionist justices who won’t make up rights and use international law make their interpretations. :roll:
October 27th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Key question:
How can Barack Obama take the Oath of Office to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” when he has stated here his intent to cast off the constraints of (i.e. overthrow) said Constitution in order to impose his vision of a new form of government.
Of course Barack would say that this is not the Barack that he knew…
October 27th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
OH CT, this is just a distraction from the real issues Americans want to talk about, dontcha know? I hate it when everyone takes Barry O’ out of context. Not sure what the context would be other wise, but don’t worry, there is a context where this doesn’t sound as bad as it does….