A President Who Won't Uphold the Constitution? Never.
Laura Hollis
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Well, now we know why Barack Obama's been so reluctant to have symbols
of this country associated with his campaign. No flags on his
airplane. Nix to pins on his lapel. Not inclined to put his hand
over his heart during the national anthem.
After all, it turns out he has a problem with that other slightly more
significant representation of our nation, the United States
Constitution.
Just as he tried to prove to everyone that his patriotism was
demonstrated by the lack of symbols of the United States, so he is now
arguing that his passion for the Constitution is demonstrated by his
commitment to shredding it.
The Drudge Report and other legitimate investigative sources like the
National Review, have exposed the most damning evidence yet of Barack
Obama's utter disregard for the core principles of the United States
government. In a radio interview given in 2001, Obama reveals yet
again about what he means by 'equality,' when he says, ".the Supreme
Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and
sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this
society."
Bad? Sure. Because now it's not just "spread the wealth" a little
bit (antithetical as that already is to American notions of hard work
and prosperity). It's that "redistribution of wealth" is part and
parcel of Obama's vision of what is "political and economic justice"
in this society.
But it is much worse. Because this Harvard-educated lawyer then
announces that the United States Supreme Court when headed by Chief
Justice Earl Warren, was "not radical enough," in its pursuit of civil
liberties, because "[i]t didn't break free from the essential
constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the
Constitution."
If this has not stopped you dead in your tracks, either you don't
understand, or you're already dead. What Obama is doing here is
expressing his opinion that the Court would have better effectuated
his definition of "political and economic justice" if it had been
willing to ignore the limits placed upon it by the Constitution.
I have written elsewhere of Obama's potential designs on the country,
and his inclinations should he obtain the power he seeks. Many of the
hypotheticals I posited then were pooh-poohed by readers, who said, in
essence, "He'd never do that; the Constitution prevents it."
At this point, any belief in Obama's respect for constitutional limits
is delusional. If he is so cavalier about the Constitution's limits
upon the power of the judiciary, why on earth would he respect the
limits on the power of the Presidency? Or on Congress? Clamor for
the reinstatement of the insidiously named "Fairness Doctrine" has
already put the First Amendment in Obama's sights. What would be
sacrosanct about the Second? Or the Fourth? Or Fifth? Or Eighth?
Why would Obama let any constitutional limit stand in the way of what
he views as "political and economic justice"?
These views are why Obama's acquaintances, associates and allies
matter. Why his Alinskyite "by any means necessary" philosophy
matters. Why we should care that he funds and takes money from people
who say they hate or wish to undermine America. Why we should be
concerned when he took spiritual sustenance from a man who spends much
of his time condemning white people. This is what drives Barack
Obama. And this is why he wants the Presidency.
The rest of Obama's observations during this interview are just as
asinine, and just as threatening. He says, "generally the
Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the
states can't do to you, 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."
This is deception. As an initial matter, few listening to him would
understand the gobbledygook, "negative liberties." But more
importantly, he never explains that the United States Constitution is
the oldest constitution in effect in the world. And that is no
accident. It is the oldest, because it is the only constitution I am
aware of that is drafted the way it is. Specifically, other
constitutions list certain rights that the government conveys upon the
people. Or, to put it as Obama did, the things "government must do
on your behalf."
Our Constitution, by contrast, has precisely the opposite
construction. We, the people, are presumed to have all the rights,
not just those written down in the Constitution. (And the Declaration
of Independence states that these rights are "endowed by our Creator;"
not by any government.)
Lest this be unclear, the drafters of the Constitution put it in
writing. The Ninth Amendment says, "The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people."
And the Tenth Amendment goes further, stating explicitly that "The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States,
respectively, or to the people."
Obama is engaging in dangerous demagoguery when he suggests that we
the people of the United States need him - or the government he wants
in place - to give us rights we don't already have.
This deceitful view was echoed when he was introduced by Democratic
Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur in Ohio earlier this week, who said that
Americans "needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a
job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for
business and farmers." This is no "bill of rights," it is a bill of
attainder (look it up). Those found "guilty" would be anyone
wealthier, more successful, or more prosperous than any other. And
the punishment? The very things Obama and the Democrats are already
pushing for: high taxes, and even seizure and redistribution of all
American's private property.
I am stunned beyond belief that these blunt admissions do not give
otherwise patriotic Obama supporters (and this describes the vast
majority of them) serious pause. But those voting for him seem to
fall into two groups. The first group says, "Oh well, Bush has
trashed the Constitution, too." Even assuming that this were true, it
is hardly a ringing endorsement for your candidate. Worse, it
displays a surprising ignorance that the procedural protections Obama
is determined to dismantle won't be there to protect you against the
next right-wing fascist you guys are always running in terror from.
What - you think Obama will give those rights back right before (if)
he leaves office?
The second group consists of disgruntled so-called "conservatives"
like Kathleen Parker, Colin Powell, Peggy Noonan, and Christopher
Buckley, who hear what Obama is saying, but choose not to believe
him. I'm not sure what to say to these people, except that their
refusal to learn from history suggests that there may be something to
those claims that there's no such thing as evolution.
Those who drafted the Constitution knew that persuasive orators who
promised beneficence in exchange for liberty would come along. This
is why George Washington admonished that "Government is not reason, it
is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a
fearful master." And it is why Thomas Jefferson said, "In questions
of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him
down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
Every President, upon taking office, takes an oath to "preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." A
President should be willing to die to defend our Constitution. Obama
is dying to destroy it.
Disciples of democracy say: Uganda needs a change of presidency in 2011.
The Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy"
Groupe de communication Mulindwas
"avec Yoweri Museveni, l'Ouganda est dans l'anarchie"_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
% UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------
