Obama audio: Constitution has a "blind spot" and "fundamental flaw"

What a crock

He says nothing of the kind! Tell us what this "codespeak is" :insane:

You mean you don't know? :lol: Why didn't you play the whole statement in context? What a transparent attempt to make something out of nothing. Where does "socialism" come in?

This is from a recording of a Chicago Public Radio discussion, including Obama, in 2001 entitled "Slavery and the Constitution".

He's talking about a US Constitution which stated that "all men are created equal" yet permitted slavery to exist for another 85 years. I think most of us would agree that was a fundamental flaw. Are you actually suggesting that legal slavery is a good thing?

Nobody has proposed a change to the Constitution, you made it up. The "fundamental flaw" in the Constitution was corrected in 1866 with the passage of the 14th Amendment. 142 years ago.

Do you ever bother to check that these things you link to are true or not? Is McCain so weak that you must make a lame attempt to smear Obama by posting statements out of context?

 

Re: What a crock

Let's assume you're right for the sake of discussion. The U.S. Constitution contains a "fundamental flaw" that "was corrected in 1866....142 years ago." Why then, was BO talking about it in 2001? Oh, that's right, he actually said the fundamental flaw "still exists today." Couldn't have speaking about slavery, then, could he? So, time for another assumption. Since redistribution of wealth was a theme of the 2001 discussion (though not in the YouTube link above), can we agree that's what he was talking about?

Let's stay with quoting the Constitution (btw, while granting I haven't read the entire document, "all men are created equal" I believe, is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). The Preamble says "promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty." "Promote", not guaranty. When Congress passes laws that outlaw discrimination, it is "promoting the general welfare" by using its authority to eliminate unfair obstacles from certain citizens, who henceforth bear the responsibility of creating their own welfare. When the gov'ment sanctions a person or business who violates those laws, it is "securing the blessings of liberty" for the citizens who were victimized in that instance. By arguing for redistribution of wealth, Obama wants to guaranty general welfare, not promote it.

The Constitution was written by men who had just fought a war of revolution from a tyrannical government. That's why the Constitution is full of limits on governmental rights and powers, not limits on the people. Listen to the clip again....Obama clearly does not understand that, and believes in a government that "must do on your behalf." And he's already well-established the premise that the tools for the government to do on the behalf of some must be mandatorily taken away from others. Or as someone once said, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
--Karl Marx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Red, you're right to say no one has proposed changing the Constitution. However, the candidate in question has clearly expressed his disdain for the document as it is written. If he is elected President (and he may very well be by a substantial majority), don't you think he would actively campaign to do just that? He is, after all, "the candidate of change."

 

Re: What a crock

It's not clear at all, it's a very big stretch.

First of all only Congress, ratified by the States can amend the Constitution. And no, I don't think Obama would actively campaign to do this. He has enough problems on his stable already that he will inherit and he has a long list of campaign promises and policies to implement that don't include congressional amendments. I think McCain/Palin is more likely to try to promote a Constitutional Amendment concerning abortion.

George Bush I taught us the 2nd-term consequences of "Read my lips". I think Obama, or any candidate, is going to try to do exactly as he promised or it will haunt him in the 2012 elections . . . and the campaign starts in only 2 years.

 

Don't forget, I was a Richardson and Hillary supporter. I think Obama was running this year for name recognition with an eye for a future serious run and things just took off for him. No he's not my first choice, but McCain ain't yours either. There just were not any Harry Truman's running. Lesser of two evils if you will. It's the Republicans that just have to go for a while.

I think the GOP has some serious re-inventing to do. Right now the social conservatives, the fiscal conservatives, the neo-conservatives, and the traditional conservatives are definitely not all on the same page. Newt Gringrich and George Will have been calling it accurately.

Strangely enough, the Republicans are more likely to split into moderate and radical parties than the democrats right now. Then I could give the moderate one a serious look.