Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Obama behind your back

Oh sure, you're close and cozy now. Best buds. He wants your vote. By the time you realize what's going on, it will be too late. He'll have your wallet, your freedom, and your future.


R. L. said...

Which of your freedoms is Obama going to take?

Maybe he'll be like George W. and take away the right to due process based upon the unconstitutional assertion that he can declare someone an enemy combatant and outside of constitutional protections (Jose Padilla).

So, please, tell me how Obama is going to be worse.

Norma said...

How will this man ever say he'll uphold the constitution now that we know that he thinks the founders got it all wrong?

R. L. said...

Care to elaborate or give examples? In every way? I find that hard to believe, and I can't imagine that is what you think. How, exactly, and in what way, do you think Obama will "have" our freedom?

By the way, The Founders didn't get everything right: slavery; denial of the vote to women; election of senators by state legislators. Of course they didn't consider themselves perfect, which is why the provided a mechanism to change the Constitution.

d. said...

The video you're obviously referencing in your quip about Obama thinking the Founders got it "wrong" completely mischaracterizes what he was saying.

It's clear you paid more attention to the yellow words on the screen, and less to what he was actually saying, as he very plainly describes the constraints in the Constitution as "essential." Essential. Go look it up. Hardly sounds like a call to topple them.

If you're genuinely worried about upsetting the Founders, I'd suggest taking another look at Palin's view on the powers of the Vice President.

Norma said...

That 2001 Chicago audio is available in a number of formats, some longer. There's no misunderstanding that Obama believes the constitution is wrong for limiting government's power in our lives and the Civil Rights movement a failure because it didn't redistribute the wealth (although he's wrong about that--it just didn't get to the people who needed it being siphoned off by the "just-us" salaries of the various agencies that got the money). That certainly isn't the only place his ideas on marxist economic principles can be found. He must have missed all those votes for a reason--he was out speechifying and giving interviews.

For a short document, I'd put the founders way ahead of any current day regulation or rule that runs to 500 pages to explain a simple concept. Palin, by the way D. isn't running for president, something her enemies have forgotten, because they hate the strength she brought to the weakened McCain candidacy. Biden, imo, weakened the Obama ticket. With Hillary, he would have been unstoppable by Sept.

d. said...

There very clearly is a misunderstanding, Norma. The mind reels at how tightly you cling to that. I'm guessing you watched the 4- or 6-minute clip of a 60-minute segment. I cannot encourage you enough to find full, unedited audio version -- sans the mischaracterizing text -- and actually listen to what he is saying. Even someone who is not law-trained should recognize the constitutional and judicial context in which he is speaking.

What he ACTUALLY said about the civil rights movement is this:

"Maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn't structured that way."

Translation? The courts can't "redistribute" change because they are not designed -- they are not constitutionally structured -- to do that.

"You just look at very rare examples where, during the desegregation era, the court was willing to, for example, order changes that cost money to a local school district and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of a court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time."

He is no saying redistributing wealth is an administrative task. This means that the court tends to avoid micromanaging issues that are better left to local levels of governance which have a better sense about how to manage such issues, including their funding. The court is not comfortable with being a bookkeeper or an accountant.

"The court's just not very good at it and politically it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally -- any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think as a practical matter our institutions are poorly equipped to do it."

As he said, any lawyer could "come up with a rationale" to use the courts for such a purpose, but as he reinforces throughout the interview, not only does he think that argument shouldn't be made, he also thinks the courts are structurally incapable of doing it anyway.

The only "tragedy" of the civil rights movement, according to Obama in this interview, was that it was too court-focused to address income inequality -- because the court isn't structured to address those matters. That's why its attention is focused not on money, but on constitutional rights and protections.

To anyone who troubled themselves to actually LISTEN, it is very clear that Obama was making a strong case AGAINST judicial activism -- which, frankly, should make any true conservative very pleased to hear. Another very conservative (and admirable!) point he makes is that the civil rights movement completely overlooked the power of the people to organize themselves politically and effect the kind of change they want at a grass-roots level, which touches the very basis of our democratic principles.

With all due respect, Norma, you have no idea what you're talking about.

R. L. said...

"Palin, by the way D. isn't running for president, something her enemies have forgotten, because they hate the strength she brought to the weakened McCain candidacy."

Actually what D said was, "If you're genuinely worried about upsetting the Founders, I'd suggest taking another look at Palin's view on the powers of the Vice President."

At no point did D say anything about Palin being President. And, I think it is perfectly fine to criticize her understanding of the Constitution. If McCain (please no) is elected, Palin is just a heart beat away.

Norma said...

I love that phrase, "with all due respect," because the person is about to say something extremely disrespectful either about your intelligence, beliefs, values, or clothes. Or in the case of Palin, all the above.

d. said...

I marvel at your capacity to ignore the obvious and change the subject.

Disagreeing with your inept analysis in no way questions your beliefs or values.