It cannot be any clearer. Barack Obama, the favorite to be elected the President of the United States of America in barely a week's time, sees the American Constitution as an obstacle rather than a guiding document. Let that sink in for a moment. Ponder what that really means and rationalize how a man with such disdain for the Constitution - your Constitution, our Constitution - can possibly in good faith take the oath of office and swear to protect and defend our Founding Document.
Way back in March 2008, seemingly an eternity ago, Ed Whelan wrote of Obama's Constitution.
But Obama's "fundamentalist" name-calling is misplaced. Originalists understand the Constitution--not "our democracy"--to be "fixed and unwavering" (apart from the amendment process it provides, of course). They recognize that, precisely because the Constitution leaves the broad bulk of policy decisions to legislators in Congress and in the states, there is lots of room to pursue and adapt different courses through the democratic processes. No originalist believes that judicial respect for the operations of representative government will guarantee that "we will be rewarded and all good will flow." This is a straw man. The virtue of originalism lies foremost in protecting the democratic decisionmaking authority that the Constitution provides. Our legislators will be sure to mess up plenty, but at least citizens will have the ability to influence them--and replace them.
Or, conversely, to elect more of them, including a President atop the Executive who clearly views the Constitution as an obstacle to "political and economic justice in this society," which can be circumvented - nay, in Obama's eyes, corrected - through legislative process. The threat to the Constitution is real, ladies and gentlemen. It is under assault, and the intent is to bypass the Constitution in order to "spread the wealth around," which is, of course, "good for everybody," in spite of the limitations of the silly and restrictive Constitution.
Let it be clear: Legislative application sought by Obama and a Pelosi-Reid Congress is a circumvention of the Constitution. Because, short of a infinitely more difficult Constitutional amendment process or even a new Constitutional convention, so significantly un-Constitutional are the envisioned fundamental changes desired that such changes and expansion of the federal government and the required accompanying conscription of individual liberties are patently unlawful.
Whelan, in March, concluded correctly.
In the end, an examination of Obama's record and rhetoric discloses the stuff he is made of--his own constitution. Beneath the congeniality and charisma lies a leftist partisan who will readily resort to sly deceptions to advance his agenda of liberal judicial activism. Given the likelihood of so many changes in the membership of the Supreme Court over the next eight years, it is particularly important that voters this November recognize the real Obama.
And, in order to recognize the real Obama, it must be considered how the Constitution for him is an obstacle rather than a guiding Document. He has made this quite clear through his own words, not anyone's distortion of them.
Comments (10)
Will the last honest report... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Dee | October 27, 2008 12:31 PM | Score: 10 (12 votes cast)
Will the last honest reporter in this country PLEASE address the multiple, radical statements that Obama makes in this audio tape with Barack Obama directly? For God sakes, do your JOB.
1. Posted by Dee | October 27, 2008 12:31 PM |
Score: 10 (12 votes cast)
Posted on October 27, 2008 12:31
2. Posted by yihdego | October 27, 2008 12:42 PM | Score: -12 (14 votes cast)
I tried asking once, and I'll do it again since the topic is related.
How is Obama's situation going to differ from FDR's?
They took a republican's mess and fixed it with a view socialist legislation that had to take a few liberties with the Constitution. It may go against some America's conservative values but that doesn't make him a man who is attacking our rights. It is an attempted solution, an experiment and while you may disagree it is not un-Constitutional to make an amendmant. That's how our country works.
2. Posted by yihdego | October 27, 2008 12:42 PM |
Score: -12 (14 votes cast)
Posted on October 27, 2008 12:42
3. Posted by Paden Cash | October 27, 2008 12:52 PM | Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
Splain to me please how the EPA or OSHA or the Dept. of ed. are constitutional. The Constitution has been in tatters since FDR if not before. I can think of very few politicians in the federal system who see the Constitution as anything other than an obstacle. Obama will be only the last nail in a coffin that has been sealed shut for decades. The next decade is going to be incredibly tough no matter what for the people at the bottom 80% of the economy. Stockpile gold, guns and ammo. The currency of poor people for the future. If Obama gets elected, the best we can hope for is a military coup. Civil war is the worst that might happen, but it seems improbable almost to the point of impossibility. I am agnostic and yet have the very strong urge to pray for deliverance.
3. Posted by Paden Cash | October 27, 2008 12:52 PM |
Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
Posted on October 27, 2008 12:52
4. Posted by P. Bunyan | October 27, 2008 12:59 PM | Score: 7 (11 votes cast)
You're most likely not going to agree with this, yhid, but most of what FDR tried to do was not only uncostitutional, but also a failure. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that FDR actually made the depression a lot worse and were it not for WWII, we likely would not have recovered from it under FDR's policies. That fact the FRD tried to change the court in order to change it from a Constitutional one to an ideological one is the most appalling of all.
But you're right, with regard to unconstitutional and economically backward policies, and stacking the courts with idealogues Obama would be like FDR, a failure, were he to be elected next week.
4. Posted by P. Bunyan | October 27, 2008 12:59 PM |
Score: 7 (11 votes cast)
Posted on October 27, 2008 12:59
5. Posted by Paden Cash | October 27, 2008 1:23 PM | Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
If obama uses the amendment process, No prob. He won't be in office long enough for the amendment to pass. The amendment process is very difficult so as to keep bad ideas from becoming constitutional. I don't think he has the kind of patience to wait for due process.
5. Posted by Paden Cash | October 27, 2008 1:23 PM |
Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
Posted on October 27, 2008 13:23
6. Posted by Justrand
| October 27, 2008 1:26 PM | Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
Obama is NOT talking about "social programs" that will disproportionally benefit "less well off" people.
Obama is talking about (and DEAD SET ON) taking money directly FROM one group and directly giving that money TO another group...pure RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!
This is so obviously un-American...but that is NOT the greatest danger from this Marxist approach.
The even greater danger is that once you start promising people you will take things FROM other people and give them those things, you will eventually run out of "things" to take from others. When that happens the masses that have grown accustomed to "free things" will grow RESTIVE...and will eventually decide to just go help themselves!!
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
When they vote to take my "stuff"...I plan to contest that vote!
6. Posted by Justrand
| October 27, 2008 1:26 PM |
Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
Posted on October 27, 2008 13:26
7. Posted by dcrussell
| October 27, 2008 1:46 PM | Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
I certainly agree with your concern about Obama vs. the Constitution.
Unfortunately for us, John McCain also "sees the American Constitution as an obstacle rather than a guiding document" and has also shown "disdain for the Constitution," especially the Bill of Rights.
McCain may be the lesser of two evils, but that does not change the fact that he is evil.
7. Posted by dcrussell
| October 27, 2008 1:46 PM |
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
Posted on October 27, 2008 13:46
8. Posted by jaybee | October 27, 2008 2:39 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
The Constitution as we know it has been ignored for so long that it no longer serves as anything other than a reference in time. The reason we are even having this discussion is due to the fact that our government has ignored the Constitution by using money other than gold/silver. Whassup with that? That to me seems the MOST important of all issues, no? Fractional banking and income taxes have ruined this country not to mention this Constitution.
8. Posted by jaybee | October 27, 2008 2:39 PM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on October 27, 2008 14:39
9. Posted by Fred hill | October 27, 2008 5:12 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Great article. I agree with jaybee
Please help my friend win a very nice guitar by listening to this playlist
(if this upsets you do not get mad at him)
9. Posted by Fred hill | October 27, 2008 5:12 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 27, 2008 17:12
10. Posted by Fred hill | October 27, 2008 5:13 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Forgot the playlist
Davids personal favorite C&C
10. Posted by Fred hill | October 27, 2008 5:13 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 27, 2008 17:13