"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution"
Every aspect of their lives are put under a microscope. Who did they serve on a board with 10 years ago? Did he cheat on his wife? Who's baby is it really? What kind of father or mother are they? How much did they donate to charity? What are they wearing? What church do they go to?ENOUGH!
Some of these questions should be asked, and we should expect and honest answer. However, with 8 days (and counting) left before our new commander and chief is elected, my biggest criteria has been vastly overlooked. The strictest form of scrutiny we should put our 'politicans' through is how they interpret the Constitution, and the powers it enumerates them. As many of you know, an interview Sen. Obama had in 2001 with Chicago Public Radio, has recently resurfaced . When I first heard about it, I thought, "Oh great, this is going to be another Ayers or Wright scenario. Just a big distraction from real issues." After quite a bit of searching, I found a full transcript, of all places on Fox News. (Here it is.) Democrats, don't go running for the hills yet. Just stick with me, you might be partially surprised. The full 45 minute interview includes two other Professors of Law, Dennis Hutchinson and Susan Bandes; and is wordy, lengthy and if you are not interested in law (and even if you are) reading it could make you go blind. I decided to take one for the team, sacrifice my time, eyesight and brainpower to read every word.
My Take: After reading the full transcript, quotes were taken out of context and were somewhat misleading. The quote that is used on replay is "But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society." Could it be because he used the term 'redistribution of wealth'? At least in this reference, and one previously which isn't blasted in talk radio, he is specifically talking about desegregation of schools. Although the courts mandated it in Brown vs. Board of Education, it cannot happen without funding. 'How do we get more money into the schools' or an 'equal educational opportunity', in referring to the civil rights era. (Both quotes following the 'redistribution' quote). And further makes a point that it is the legislators who should provide funding, not the courts. (And the legislators, then and now, take that job very seriously!) Do I find this statement what it is made out to be? Not entirely. Do I feel he is overly comfortable with the concept of 'redistribution or wealth'? Absolutely. When referring to the 60's need of spreading the state funding amongst all schools, black and white, equally; I am in complete agreement. When talking with the current American population who are struggling financially and looking for an easy, or any, way out using the same 'spread the wealth' concept, I 100% disagree. However, the statement that truly worries me is:
"...the constitution is a document 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 state government must do on your behalf and that hasnt shifted."
This brings me back to my original quote from the ultimate law of the land, our Constitution. Our Civil Servants, including President Bush, Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama are bound to support this Constitution." Our founding fathers intentionally wrote the Constitution as giving the federal government defined powers. The colonies fought a bloody war against an over-reaching government, and wanted 'negative liberties' expressed specifically to limit the new government. One of their greatest cries against the King was "taxation without representation". How many of us can identify? I do not feel my opinions or my voice are being represented in Congress, especially regarding taxes and how they spend them! Our current form of a federal government is already over-spending, and over-reaching it's enumerated powers. What happens when we have a democratic majority in both houses and in the White House? Will they then fulfill Sen. Obama's idea of 'what the government must do on your behalf?' There will be no check of their powers, or balance to their political agenda. Has Sen. Obama passed my Constitutional scruitiny test? Failed with flying colors. Would President Bush or Vice President Cheney pass? I don't think so.
13 comments:
very well written and well researched post. Thanks
We are having a great time on vacation!! had some great conversations on prop 8 while here!
Thank for this post. This is another example why Obama is frightful to me. Is THIS the change we are looking for?
I'm confused by what you mean, and why what Obama said 7 years ago, when what, was he a state senator then?, or was he even that. (You know occasionally political people change positions as time passes, look at Romney, first prochoice then prolife) and why this is so frightening now? I don't know the specifics of the constitution enough to understand why this is so upsetting to so many of you. I'm reviewing my memories of SchoolHouse Rock (Yes, I'm just a Bill, yes I'm only a Bill, etc.) and I still can't figure it out, so I guess I'll plead the fifth, one part of it I do know, and just say knowing me, I'll probably disagree.
Why is it some politicians can have their opinions 'evolve' as they have life experiences, when others are condemned for 'waffling' or 'flip-flopping'? Who's the judge of that. But I agree that with life experience comes new perspectives and also a change or 'evolution' of opinions. (Although when I shared my experience of using govt. aid and having a new perspective on it, I was labeled as having a 'double standard' and changing my opinion when it is convenient to make a point. hmm...)
okbushmans, I agree with you completely and I thank you again for your post. I was trying to give myself a mental break by just agreeing with you because you said it so well. The problem is that I just can't keep my mouth shut on this one. Obama keeps getting off for everything. When you accumulate every association and every phrase he has said, he really really sounds like a socialist. This is scary to me. I don't say that because of what the media says, it is just a simple accumulation of a long series of issues surrounding him. I think the thing that irritates me the most is not that he has "followers", it is that people refuse to see him for ALL he is (good points and bad) and they continue to make excuses for him. I personally have made NO excuses for McCain. I see his good points and I see his flaws. I don't know why people will not fess up to the fact that Obama has many flaws also. The last time I checked, the only perfect person was the Savior.
The issue regarding what he has said about the constitution is very scary. Our founding fathers put together a document that is amazing. If it wasn't, then our country wouldn't be what it is today. It enables us all the growth and development that we need to be a successful, thriving, forward moving nation. Not to be a religious alarmist, but when I hear statements like this, made by ANYONE, it reminds me of the prophecy relating to the Constitution and how it will hang by a thread.
Please, ban me from reading your blog anymore....my children are suffering :)
A correction....I didn't mean to say "every association and every phrase", that was excessive. I meant to say "many associations and many phrases."
You're right; whose to judge, and you still didn't explain it to me, I'm being serious here, are you worried too much tax and not enough accountability? You think it's unfair to make the wealthy pay for it all? You are under the impression his words you quoted mean, what? That he's going to rewrite the Constitution? That his proposals seem unfair, unreasonable? That's what I don't get.
And about that other "incident", I said it seemed like a double standard, not that it actually was one, I was, at the time, looking at myself and wondered how you reconciled it, what was the turning point that made you change your mind. I've used pell grants, lowrate student loans, my husband is a diabetic and had to be in the State Health Insurance Pool for awhile, so I've been a part of it too. You took what I said like a slap across the face, like it was a unremoveable blot that you're still trying to apply spot remover, when it wasn't meant to be; I didn't even have time to read your whole comment before your words started flying off the screen and biting me in the ass!
So tell me why you find these words of his sooo scary, not in conservative speak, but real person speak. What does it mean for the normal, everyday person to be considered conservative - but please use no personal experience, I don't want to loose my other butt cheek - even if I do need to lose some weight.
And Jen, you didn't compare Obama to say, the leader of the Gadianton robbers this time. I feel like we've made real progress. And I have yet to hear anyone say they really like McCain, "he has his good points and his flaws" but you will vote for him anyway, right? Why can't Democrats be allowed to do the same as well for their candidate?
Anyhoo...in response to Lula's comment about the Constitution, the Constitution is my passion. What worries me about Obama's comment, not just in that ONE instance, but through many, is the vast and gaping difference between our ideas of the constitution and the role of government.
Ben Franklin said, "The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." In contrast, Sen. Obama has said, "This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many." Instead of catching it yourself, it must be shared.
Even Abraham Lincoln who is truly the only President who faced the reality of a horribly divided country, and possibility of a utter collapse, said "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
James Madison understood that the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights provided the citizens more rights than any other civilization has experienced previously, and only through putting 'negative liberties' on the government. He said, "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Our founding fathers feared a govt who took it upon themselves to 'grant' it's citizens benefits or the govt doing something on the people's behalf. They warned that too much govt control would lead to tyranny, whether economic or social or religious or political. We are winding down a road to economic tyranny, turning to the govt for the answers, and not relying on the Constitution to keep it in her limits. I could go on and on. But I will wait to see other's responses!
In regards to Obama's position on the Constitution, he has stated many times it doesn't give the state or federal govt enough power. That is what is worrying, or concerning, or as some would say, 'scary'. Do I think he will try and rewrite the Constitution? No. Will he overstep his powers granted to him by the Constitution? Yes, every President has in some way. But, will he have the natural check of a well-balanced Congress? Nope, not how the state elections look currently. And I feel that Pres. Bush and Congress are laying the unsturdy financial foundation towards economic socialism. Buying up the banks? Buying up the loans? Did I hear correctly a Congresswoman is proposing to buy up the 401K's? This IS socialism, which is a financial system that has proven to fail every single time. It gives the govt too much power, which the Constitution was instituted to prevent. It is not just Sen. Obama, (many politicians on Capital Hill, and it appears Pres. Bush and Sect. Paulson are following suit) but I have not heard anyone who has articulated this philosophy towards the Constitution so blatently and openly.
Was that 'real person' speak? I know Conservativism is my native language, but I am taking RSL (realism as a second language) in night classes. I'm still not fluent.
(And I was not trying to revisit my butt-chewing days, it was just the perfect example of how perception of a position change is in the eye of the beholder. I will refrain from future butt-chewing incidents...I don't have my rabies shots yet... Us conservatives are contagious!)
As soon as the curses fly, you'll pass the course.
If Obama wins, I'm hoping he'll learn from Clinton's initial mistakes, and follow the correct ones he made after that-with the Republican congress- by sticking to the middle, pretty much angering both the right and left. I've been reading alot about how the country as a whole is just right of center. Whoever is elected will have to live there, I'm talking set up house for a good long while, or he'll not be elected again. Whoever gets in is inheriting the mother-in-law of all messes. We'll see what happens and hope for the best. Thanks for explaining your view point. I've seen the Constitution at the National Archives. I should of paid more attention.
I cried when I first saw the constitution. At the time I was taking Constitution History and Law, in my last semester of college. It is what has held our country together for almost 250 years.
And I hope Obama does follow what you suggest, sitting in center. But, it appears he won't have the problem Clinton did: a Republican Congress. He won't 'have' to sit in the center, although you pointed out that is where majority of America sits. He has the majority of Capitol Hill on his left side of center. And they share the same view as he does of govt and constitution, which doesn't represent the majority of Americans in the center. That is what worries me. If there was a balance in the other areas of govt I wouldn't be as worried.
Post a Comment