Legacy Fan Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 RE: Warren Court the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the state government or federal government must do on your behalf." Yikes. Anyone else find anything wrong with that? Isn't this type of thinking part of what got Dumbya into so much trouble? I vote Obama stays the hell away from the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titleist585 Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 That was from 2001 but it isn't exactly a good quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted October 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 That was from 2001 but it isn't exactly a good quote. Thanks for the summary of the 1st 5 seconds of the video. Care to elaborate on why it's not "exactly a good quote"? He said it. And it's not edited nor taken out of context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titleist585 Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 That was from 2001 but it isn't exactly a good quote. Thanks for the summary of the 1st 5 seconds of the video. Care to elaborate on why it's not "exactly a good quote"? He said it. And it's not edited nor taken out of context. I stated that is was from 7 years ago and the quote that you laid out I replied that it wasn't a good quote aka he shouldn't have said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titleist585 Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 That was from 2001 but it isn't exactly a good quote. Thanks for the summary of the 1st 5 seconds of the video. Care to elaborate on why it's not "exactly a good quote"? He said it. And it's not edited nor taken out of context. I admit I should have said "that isn't a good statement". I wasn't defending Obama I was saying it wasn't a good thing to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 RE: Warren Courtthe Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the state government or federal government must do on your behalf." Yikes. Anyone else find anything wrong with that? Isn't this type of thinking part of what got Dumbya into so much trouble? I vote Obama stays the hell away from the Constitution. If you knew anything about the way our style of goverment works, you would not even be worrying about him getting near the constitution. Ammendments must be ratified by Congress and the states. The Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted October 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 That was from 2001 but it isn't exactly a good quote. Thanks for the summary of the 1st 5 seconds of the video. Care to elaborate on why it's not "exactly a good quote"? He said it. And it's not edited nor taken out of context. I stated that is was from 7 years ago and the quote that you laid out I replied that it wasn't a good quote aka he shouldn't have said it. I can say it slower if you like. Ok. Has he changed his mind? And your explanation of "not a very good quote" at least ties up the vagueness of your original post - but you knew that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted October 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 I admit I should have said "that isn't a good statement". I wasn't defending Obama I was saying it wasn't a good thing to say. Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titleist585 Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 I admit I should have said "that isn't a good statement". I wasn't defending Obama I was saying it wasn't a good thing to say. Gotcha. Let's see on November 5th how much of an effect a quote from 2001 has. Deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted October 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 If you knew anything about the way our style of goverment works, you would not even be worrying about him getting near the constitution. Ammendments must be ratified by Congress and the states. The Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the constitution. I think we'd agree that there is a noticeable difference between the way our "style" of Govt is supposed vs. how it actually works. It certainly brings the "He's a socialist" chants into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted October 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 I admit I should have said "that isn't a good statement". I wasn't defending Obama I was saying it wasn't a good thing to say. Gotcha. Let's see on November 5th how much of an effect a quote from 2001 has. Deal? My guess is about as much relevance as actually going deeper than "He's a good speaker. He's smart." has had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titleist585 Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 My guess is about as much relevance as actually going deeper than "He's a good speaker. He's smart." has had. He'll be your President for the next 4 maybe 8 years. Deal with it my good man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 he's a socialist So is McCain, who wants to redistribute wealth back to the wealthiest 5%. So is Palin, Governor of Alaska, who taxes certain industries so heavily that all residents of Alaska get yearly checks from the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 I don't get what's objectionable about that quote. What he's saying is that the Constitution provides limits & constraints on government. It can't restrict your freedom of religion, speech, etc. What is doesn't say is that the government has an affirmative responsibility to provide you certain things: housing, health care, etc. That's a major difference between our constitution and modern European constitutions, which specify certain positive liberties the gov't is responsible for providing to all of its citizens. It's a very academic point, but I don't think Obama's said anything close to what Drudge & the McCain campaign are claiming he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 I don't get what's objectionable about that quote. What he's saying is that the Constitution provides limits & constraints on government. It can't restrict your freedom of religion, speech, etc. What is doesn't say is that the government has an affirmative responsibility to provide you certain things: housing, health care, etc. That's a major difference between our constitution and modern European constitutions, which specify certain positive liberties the gov't is responsible for providing to all of its citizens. It's a very academic point, but I don't think Obama's said anything close to what Drudge & the McCain campaign are claiming he said. They are grasping at straws so tightly it's embarassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted October 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 I don't get what's objectionable about that quote. What he's saying is that the Constitution provides limits & constraints on government. It can't restrict your freedom of religion, speech, etc. What is doesn't say is that the government has an affirmative responsibility to provide you certain things: housing, health care, etc. That's a major difference between our constitution and modern European constitutions, which specify certain positive liberties the gov't is responsible for providing to all of its citizens. It's a very academic point, but I don't think Obama's said anything close to what Drudge & the McCain campaign are claiming he said. That was kind of the lead in quote, Al. He's (in the interview) trying to rationalize "bringing about economic change through the courts." That is problematic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 What's the quote of his I have been hearing about the shortcomings of the constitution to provide for redistribution oof wealth to addtress racial inequality? That's a loose paraphrase. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 No, he didn't say that, Leg. While he does say that one may be able to provide theoretical reasons for going the judicial route, he also says that he doesn't think it's the right thing to do. The sense I get from listening to that clip is that Obama's arguing for more bottom-up legislative action on these issues, not a top-down strategy in which all issues are hammered out in the courts. Isn't that something conservatives have been saying for years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 Here's conservative legal scholar David Bernstein on the Obama interview: Based on this interview, it seems unlikely that Obama opposes constitutionalizing the redistributive agenda because he's an originalist, or otherwise endorses the Constitution as a "charter of negative liberties," though he explicitly recognizes that this is how the Constitution has been interpreted since the Founding. Rather, he seems to think that focusing on litigation distracts liberal activists from necessary political organizing, and that any radical victories they might manage to win from the courts would be unstable because those decisions wouldn't have public backing. The way to change judicial decisions, according to Obama, is to change the underlying political and social dynamics; changes in the law primarily follow changes in society, not vice versa. Again, he's channeling Rosenberg and Klarman. And this attitude on Obama's part shouldn't be surprising, given that he decided to go into politics rather than become a full-time University of Chicago constitutional law professor, as he was offered. Had he been committed to the idea that courts are at the forefront of social change, he would have been inclined to take a potentially very influential position at Chicago. (And judging from this interview, he would likely have been a great con law professor, both as a teacher and scholar, and, had he been so inclined, legal activist.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 There's nothing objectionable about this quote, Leg. You're completely misreading it. This quote is is conservative in nature, not some sort of socialist screed. You guys should have learned to stop trusting Drudge after last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 By the way, someone should ask Sarah Palin if she agrees that the Constitution is a "charter of negative liberties" just to see what she says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted October 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 Here's conservative legal scholar David Bernstein on the Obama interview:Based on this interview, it seems unlikely that Obama opposes constitutionalizing the redistributive agenda because he's an originalist, or otherwise endorses the Constitution as a "charter of negative liberties," though he explicitly recognizes that this is how the Constitution has been interpreted since the Founding. Rather, he seems to think that focusing on litigation distracts liberal activists from necessary political organizing, and that any radical victories they might manage to win from the courts would be unstable because those decisions wouldn't have public backing. The way to change judicial decisions, according to Obama, is to change the underlying political and social dynamics; changes in the law primarily follow changes in society, not vice versa. Again, he's channeling Rosenberg and Klarman. And this attitude on Obama's part shouldn't be surprising, given that he decided to go into politics rather than become a full-time University of Chicago constitutional law professor, as he was offered. Had he been committed to the idea that courts are at the forefront of social change, he would have been inclined to take a potentially very influential position at Chicago. (And judging from this interview, he would likely have been a great con law professor, both as a teacher and scholar, and, had he been so inclined, legal activist.) There's nothing objectionable about this quote, Leg. You're completely misreading it. This quote is is conservative in nature, not some sort of socialist screed. You guys should have learned to stop trusting Drudge after last week. Perhaps. I've read & listened to the clip over, and I still think he'd like to see a proactive interpretation of the Constitution. If a shift in the current of political & social dynamic starts in the legislative branch - which contrary to it's purpose, doesn't do a very good job of representation, IMO - it is just semantics (yes, I'm aware that using that specific channel is the current, legal, & above-the-table way of doing it) in regards to his goal - redistribution of wealth. Again- over & over the term "redistribution" is used. Regardless of context, that word only has one meaning. That's what troubles me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 Do you think Obama gives a shit about the Constitution? Hell No! he thinks he is our father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 Do you think Obama gives a shit about the Constitution? Hell No! he thinks he is our father. I don't think anybody cares about the constitution T. I'd ask those who disagree what rights are we guaranteed? And then point out that even if there were some they can be taken away at the whim of five members of the SC. Less than the Politburo. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 the danger here, is that Obama figures if he can't say, get rid of the 2nd or 1st ammendment, he thinks he can still change things another way to prevent them from being affective. Like, he voted to put a $500 price tag on gun registration. Talk about give only rich folks the right ... He voted to OUTLAW ALL AMMO. So, you could have guns, but no more ammo to use them. Obama is a devious manipulator, a power seeker and dealer, and a socialist anti-American, anti-white garbage nominee who may even be ILLEGALLY RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.