In an interview with a Chicago public radio station, Obama said:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK.
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. 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 its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.
Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or 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, um, 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 coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
(audio interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck)
If, for whatever reason, you didn’t believe that Obama was a radical who does not believe in the society that our founding fathers envisioned over 200 years ago this quote should dispel any disbelief.
You see, the original constitution did not include a “bill of rights” in it. The articles simply outlined how the government should be run. Early opponents argued that because the document did not provide for any specific protections of individual liberties it should not be ratified. James Madison proposed the 10 amendments that have collectively come to be known as the “Bill of Rights.” These were ratified by the states in 1791.
The purpose of these rights was to secure liberties to the people. They were designed to ensure that government kept it’s focus on preserving people’s liberty. Obama fundamentally does not believe in individual liberties. His focus is on centralizing services and equalizing outcomes. This is a key difference with our founding fathers. Someone who desires to equalize outcomes will invariably wish to redistribute income and centralize control so that it can be ensured that everyone has a similar quality of life, etc.
Our founding father’s believed that it was necessary to protect our liberty and they encoded that in the Constitution. That document has served our country well for over 200 years and the ideas that it embodies are part of what makes America great. Barrack Obama does not see things this way; he wants to tear down the Constitution.
Forgive me, but I will not stand with him in this. The very idea that we have a president who does not believe in the principals of the constitution frightens me and I hope that the people of this nation will do everything in their power to oppose him.
Unlike Obama, I hope we remain free.