Friday, December 12th, 2008 | Author:

I posted a while ago that Obama is no fan of the Constitution, and I’ll repeat the quote from a 2001 radio interview [emphasis added throughout this post]:

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 its been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it 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, um, 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.

And here’s another quote:

In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, he said, “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

Obama has committed himself to respecting the Constitution, but he said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events.

Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, “His view is that our society isn’t static and the law isn’t static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that.”

In addition to appointing sympathetic judges, another opportunity to dismantle the Constitution may be coming Obama’s way. From WorldNetDaily:

A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which “today’s corrupt politicians and judges” could formally change the U.S. Constitution’s “‘problematic’ provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society.”

Now, there’s a scary thought. We know they ignore it and twist it to suit their purposes, but to actually re-write it? Who’s behind this effort?

DeWeese said the Constitutional Convention effort was begun in the 1980s by those who wanted to rein in government with an amendment requiring a balanced budget for the federal agencies.

“Certainly all loyal Americans want government constrained by a balanced budget,” the alert said. “But calling a Con Con risks a revolutionary change in our form of government. The ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution, one that would possibly eliminate the Article 1 restriction to the coinage of real money or even eliminate gun or property rights.”

He noted that when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a new Constitution.

Do we really want the power-hungry control-freaks in Washington choosing delegates to rewrite our Constitution?

Yeah, right …

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
One Response
  1. Cato says:

    So far, the anti-Constitutionalists have done a great job of working with the Constitution to get what they want. What I mean is, the Constitution is by nature rather vague and unnumerated, so tyants can twist it around to say whatever they want. This mode of operation has worked for the past 180 years, why change that now?

    Ah, but the people are becoming interested more in their Bill of Rights. This poses a problem for the tyrants. As more Americans cling to it, the more tyrannical the tyrants get.

    I hopefully doubt that the American people would tolerate a re-write. I know that Washington would LOVE to, as most of the politicians are horribly corrupt. But I don’t think the American populace would swallow a rewrite, not yet, anyway. But perhaps in a few more years, judging at how successful the public educational system has been, it would be plausible to expect it.