Obama on Obama - Big Big Forums

anothersta · 10-28-2008, 06:39 PM

SurferGirl · 10-28-2008, 06:51 PM

I heard something on the news and haven't been able to find an article yet but I heard that Barack Obama feels the constitution restricts the government too much. If anyone could find the article I'd love to read it.

Obama gets scarier by the minute.

janelle · 10-28-2008, 07:11 PM

I think that is in his speech about the civil rights movement made years ago. I think Jolie posted it on here. He said they didn't go far enough to change the way our government works. It was tied down in the courts too much.

Makes one wonder how he will change the constitution in order to reflect how he sees things.

YNKYH8R · 10-28-2008, 07:14 PM

He can't change it. It has to go through many chains to do so.

janelle · 10-28-2008, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YNKYH8R

He can't change it. It has to go through many chains to do so.

Not when Obama and his party get done with it. They will have no opposition when it's Dem dominated. The opposition will have no voice.

anothersta · 10-28-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by janelle

I think that is in his speech about the civil rights movement made years ago. I think Jolie posted it on here. He said they didn't go far enough to change the way our government works. It was tied down in the courts too much.

Makes one wonder how he will change the constitution in order to reflect how he sees things.

Here it is:

Quote:

OBAMA: You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the courts, I think where it succeeded was to get formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples -- so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I was able to pay for it I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And 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 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, 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. And one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, 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 coalitions of power through which to bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

..... Karen (Caller): The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn't terribly radical with economic changes. My question is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?

Host: You mean the courts?

Karen: The courts, or would it be legislation at this point?

Obama: 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. Y'know, the institution just isn't structured that way.

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

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 mean, I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, y'know I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. .....

Take note that he's not talking about whether redistribution is right or wrong, he's talking about HOW TO DO IT. And, he references community organizations aka ACORN.

And yes, the constitution can be amended. With a Dem pres, a dem senate and a dem house, it would fly right through.

SurferGirl · 10-28-2008, 09:52 PM

Thank you Anothersta for posting that here. I just heard them mentioning the part about the constitution and that was probably what they were talking about. It really scares me if Obama thinks the constitution is too limiting.
I'm afraid he will want to eliminate term limits and free speech and our basic rights. Look what happens to people that just ask him a question or radio stations that have ads he doesn't like. He's made it clear he doesn't like Fox News. He also likes the idea of throwing an election. So he obviously doesn't think we should have fair elections. I guess the Department of Justice is pro Obama and we thought they would help us get a fair election. If Obama gets in with democrats in the house and senate I'm afraid he wants to turn our country into a dictatorship. During his term in offce he would also be able to apoint supreme court justices.

janelle · 10-28-2008, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SurferGirl

Thank you Anothersta for posting that here. I just heard them mentioning the part about the constitution and that was probably what they were talking about. It really scares me if Obama thinks the constitution is too limiting.
I'm afraid he will want to eliminate term limits and free speech and our basic rights. Look what happens to people that just ask him a question or radio stations that have ads he doesn't like. He's made it clear he doesn't like Fox News. He also likes the idea of throwing an election. So he obviously doesn't think we should have fair elections. I guess the Department of Justice is pro Obama and we thought they would help us get a fair election. If Obama gets in with democrats in the house and senate I'm afraid he wants to turn our country into a dictatorship. During his term in offce he would also be able to apoint supreme court justices.

I hope to God if that does happen there will be enough dems up there that wouldn't go along with it. I can't believe all the dems like Obama, I bet there are a few who are alarmed by him, more than a few.

anothersta · 10-28-2008, 10:51 PM

The quote in the pic is from his book 'dreams from my (the word deadbeat should be here) father'.

He was talking about how he didn't want these groups to think he was a sellout, so he specifically sought these people out to hang with. I'll try and find the quote later.

YNKYH8R · 10-29-2008, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by janelle

Not when Obama and his party get done with it. They will have no opposition when it's Dem dominated. The opposition will have no voice.

Kind of like those who want same sex marriage.

anothersta · 10-29-2008, 06:40 AM

The quote, from factcheck.org

Quote:

Actual quote from "Dreams from My Father" [pg. 100-101]: To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed necolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated. But this strategy alone couldn't provide the distance I wanted, from Joyce or my past. After all, there were thousands of so-called campus radicals, most of them white and tenured and happily tolerated. No, it remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...uld_stand.html
last quote at the bottom of the page