http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of
redistribution of wealth...
...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...
... the Constitution...doesn’t say what the federal government...must do
One
of the... tragedies of the civil rights movement was...to lose track of the... community organizing...activities...through which you bring about redistributed change...
...I’m not optimistic about bringing about major
redistributive change through the courts...
The court’s just not very good at it...
You start getting into
all sorts of separation of powers issues... in a process that essentially is administrative...
Finally, out of his own mouth, when you peel back the rhetoric, you get at where is mind is. He didn't mean to, but he has revealed himself in a way that coincides with his response to Joe the Plumber.
1. Reparations - Obama began with injustices to black people, and the failure to redistribute America's wealth to them after segregation.(...look at the...failures of the civil
rights movement...the issues of
redistribution of wealth and... issues of...economic justice...).
2. The Constitution - Obama views our Constitution, not as a document to constrain government, but as a document to enforce government. Here, as a Harvard law "lecturer", not a professor as he contends, he has somewhere missed in all of his education the fact that our founding fathers recognized the we are all inherently free, and they imposed constraints on the government to ensure that freedom. Obama views the Constitution as a means to force us to do his bidding (... the Constitution...doesn’t say what the federal government...must do)
3.The Supreme Court - In order for government to do his bidding, Obama recognizes he must go around the Supreme Court (
It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by
the founding fathers in the Constitution)
4. Redistribution of people's earnings - Since the Supreme Court won't do what he wants, and the Constitution gets in his way, Obama believes that political power is the way to get around them (...I’m not optimistic about bringing about major
redistributive change through the courts...). He sees the Court as inefficient at doing what he believes is just a process of passing a law and administering the transfer of earnings from one group of people to another (You start getting into
all sorts of separation of powers issues... in a process that essentially is administrative...).
Obama has some serious flaws in his understanding of our Republic. Or, quite possibly, he understands it, but wants to change what has preserved our freedoms and served us well for over two hundred years. Is this the "change" he speaks of?
Mark
