Did Obama really say "the Constitution is outdated and flawed"?
Yes he did.. Can you imagine the press coverage is a Republican candidate said these things. Libs.. here are bunches of links, including a video of the King himself. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79225 http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_constitution/2008/10/27/144675.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4 http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/10/27/obama-constitution-reflects-fundamental-flaw-in-this-country/ http://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+%2B+constution+%2B+flawed&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Oh.. and there's several hundred more links. Here's what he said .. in context In the 2001 interview, 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 and 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 it's been interpreted, and the 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 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.
Why do we still follow the constitution?
Though I fully disagree with you on your basic idea of it being outdated and parts irrelevant, I believe it is great document to protect Freedom and Liberty when followed as it was meant to mean. But on your other point, changing it would be fine IF it is done through the ONLY legitimate process available, and that is through the source of ALL power the people. Until that were to happen, it is a codified set of rules to prevent tyranny and oppression, none should be picked or chosen to follow or disregard all must be followed until changed by the people. NEVER let the users of the power (government) be the ones to define their power, because there will always be reason to expand the power until they make themselves the possessor of all power. This is the reason for a Constitution and why we MUST always ask "is it allowed (in the Constitution)" to prevent this encroachment on our freedoms and liberties. But the only way to do it is the legitimate way, through amendments or a Constitution Convention which is then ratified by the people and not government(s). Thomas Jefferson and the Founders suggested what you say is a basic, natural and inalienable right of man right, in the Declaration of Independence "that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness " BUT it must be the people, not government making this call. Until it is done, we must always keep them in the box, and NEVER give the prisoner (government) the key (the power to define its power) to its cell (the Constitution).
Why was the U.S constitution considered a radical document?
1) It set aside the Western theory of government legitimacy that the right to rule came from God and was given to a monarch. 2) It claimed that the people had the right and the ability to govern themselves. 3) That the power of Government is limited. 4) That the head of the government is subject to and not personally above the law. 5) That the judiciary branch is not inferior to but co-equal with the legislative and executive Branches of government. never happened before except in the colony of New York.
Why don't liberals realize that Obama's father was a Muslim?
WE KNOW!!!! WE’VE ALWAYS KNOWN!!! His name is Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.! It’s kind of noticeable.We heard that name and went, “What? Who is this guy? Oh, an Illinois Senator, son of an immigrant and raised by a single mom, hmm, went to Columbia University, cool!, Harvard law school, wow! Made law review, good, good. Made president of the Harvard Law Review, Dang! Teaches constitutional law at University of Chicago Law School, so he has a full understanding of the judiciary, awesome! He’s young but I see that he served in the state legislature before going straight to the US Senate so he has some legislative experience. Check. Oh, he has an American accent. Grew up in Hawaii but lived abroad so he has some international experience, neat! Wrote some books, interesting. Hey, that was a really good speech! By gosh, we might have a contender here!”We also know that “Muslim” is a code word for Black. Yeah, we noticed that too. There are many reasons to oppose Obama and to disagree with his policies. His being black and the son of a Muslim are two of the most irrelevant ones.So when you lead with that, we think, “So….that’s…it?...That’s all you’ve got? That’s your strongest argument against him? Riiiiiiiiiight..K…TNX…..Byeeeeeeee!” My 13-year old, says “That is the kind of thing you’d use at the losing end of an argument when you’ve been out-maneuvered. It’s what a child would say, ‘Oh yeah? Well his father’s a Muslim!’” As he is a child, he would know. For some of us, hearing of a bi-racial Illinois politician with a funny, Middle-Eastern sounding name was the beginning of the story. For others, it was the be-all and end-all.
Does the constitution apply to private schools and universities?
Yes, it applies everywhere on American soil. The key word is "private". If you don't like the school, don't send your child there. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mandate a separation of church and state, or ban prayer even in public schools. The phrase, "separation of church and state" is just used by the secular left to advance their agenda. The 1st Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". Having prayer in school is not Congress making law that establishes a state religion. However, if a law is passed banning prayer in school, that is a violation of the 1st Amendment (prohibiting the free exercise thereof). Private schools can teach whatever classes they want and ban any student groups that they want, so long as the school meets federal and state education requirements.
How does constitution protect the free enterprise?
Hello- The Tenth Amendment requires that property may only be taken by the government after due process and with just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that "property" in this clause means both real and personal property, plus the rights to receive such for any legal reason. It follows that the right of a businessman to receive the profits of his endeavor, if the business is legal, are protected by the Constitution and that he and he alone has the right to sell, modify, or dispose of his enterprise. Thus, capitalism is indirectly protected in the Constitution. Also, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The Democracy will cease to exist when you take from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." And... "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of people under the pretense of taking care of them." The Constitution is written to spell out the duties, functions and responsibilities of the three branches of government. The Bill of Rights however, while never addressing this directly, does guaranty the right to the pursuit of happiness. Given Jefferson's comments as stated above, moving away from capitalism will be an infringement upon the people's right to pursue happiness. It would seem that those who do not like capitalism are the ones who would be held brutally accountable for their inactions and poor life decisions. America, was founded on the principle that anyone can amass great wealth and land. In the earliest hours of this country's life, only those of aristocracy could do that. Hope this helps!
If barry saturo manages to perpetrate the greatest fraud of all time and steal the election ?
with a super majority,6 months,tops.