Hat Tip: Doug
"Constitution is a charter of negative liberties"... wants to break free of "negative" constraints of the founding fathers...the state must do things on your behalf because "we suffer from not having redistributive change" - Barack Obama
Listen to the man's words before he was running for President. In this 2001 radio interview, while Barack Obama was a state senator, Obama states that through legislation and Court decisions, minorities have acquired the right to vote, to eat where they choose, but fell short in "economic justice." Then Obama laments that the legislation and the Court stopped short of "redistribution of wealth.“ Obama gives us an insight in to what a community organizer does and how community organization is necessary to redistribute your wealth.
He states political and economic justice cannot be helped by the US Constitution because the US "Constitution is a charter of negative liberties."
He states that we still suffer from not having redistributive change.
Obama is a socialist. He claims the courts and legistlative branch cannot do enough to make redistribution happen. Now a President is something else again is it not. Now there is a community organizer.
If you are white and own property and you believe that you owe some of your property to blacks because they do not have their fair share, then by all means vote for Barack Obama or against John McCain. He will redistribute your wealth.
Let us see just how many ignorant and how many stupid Americans fall for this dangerous charlatan.
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.
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. 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. - Barack Obama in 2001