Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Laura Hollis' prescient and comprehensive article is right on target!
She quotes and debunks Barry the un-Constitutional perfesser "“…the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.” and again..."
"The rest of Obama’s observations during this interview are just as asinine, and just as threatening. He says, “generally the Constitution is a charter 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 the state government must do on your behalf.”"
Tried and convicted by his own words I'd say!
Oblahblah, a first class, big-government, nanny state demagogue, who thinks he can tamper with the finest political document ever written, the Constitution of the United States!
You left out the first bit somehow, but not to worry, here it is:
"[You know, 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 vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but]
the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”
Is that frightening to you?
You highlighted the last bit; I added the left-out part of its sentence:
["And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried 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 Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that]
generally the Constitution is a charter 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 the state government must do on your behalf.”
Do you disagree with this?
Last edited by delusianne; 03-14-2010 at 03:22 PM..
And where did this young snot-nosed, wet-behind-the-ears and later in life to become a street agitating demogogue, rogue church/pastor attending, Chicago Thug get his early formation??
Why at the knee of his Communist, child-molesting, dope-using father?figure Frank Marshall Davis when his mother abandoned him to go globe hopping for another lei.
I believe that ObaMao was seriously abandoned/abused as a child to be exposed to such a radical/child abusing/drug user as Frank Marshall Davis.
you really follow a rational line of thinking there. if the childhood makes the man I would ask what was your childhood like that would make you even consider this line of outrageous falsehoods to be even slightly worth consideration as truth
a mean and controlling mother with an absent or just whipped dad? hmmmmm
As for the rest, here's a thought: people who study the Constitution will at times comment on it. Sometimes even unfavorably. (Not that I'm seeing much beyond a factual comment. The US Constitution is a negative list.) You cannot properly study something that you're emotionally convinced is beyond reproach.
Perhaps some day Laura Hollis (or should I say Lalala Colitis, to stay with the tone set for the thread) will herself manage to approach the Constitution from a slightly more detached perspective. Until then she'll be forced to pick through other people's writings and pounce on any word that isn't unbarred praise. Which is rather sad.
Laura Hollis' prescient and comprehensive article is right on target!
She quotes and debunks Barry the un-Constitutional perfesser "“…the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.” and again..."
"The rest of Obama’s observations during this interview are just as asinine, and just as threatening. He says, “generally the Constitution is a charter 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 the state government must do on your behalf.”"
Tried and convicted by his own words I'd say!
Oblahblah, a first class, big-government, nanny state demagogue, who thinks he can tamper with the finest political document ever written, the Constitution of the United States!
It might be nice if Laura and you would learn to provide the entire quote. Since you didn't here is what Obama said:
"................as radical as I think people tried 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 Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter 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 the state government must do on your behalf."
What you and Laura have done here is deliberately edit the quote to distort the fact that Obama was talking about the Warren Court interpretation. You can disagree with the supreme court ruling but you can't condemn a president whose own opinion agrees or disagrees with a ruling that you obviously don't understand.
You left out the first bit somehow, but not to worry, here it is:
"[You know, 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 vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but]
the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”
Is that frightening to you?
You highlighted the last bit; I added the left-out part of its sentence:
["And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried 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 Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that]
generally the Constitution is a charter 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 the state government must do on your behalf.”
Do you disagree with this?
Right-wingers caught quote-mining? I never thought I'd see the day!
Laura Hollis' prescient and comprehensive article is right on target!
She quotes and debunks Barry the un-Constitutional perfesser
"The rest of Obama’s observations during this interview are just as asinine, and just as threatening. He says, “generally the Constitution is a charter 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 the state government must do on your behalf.”"
Expanding on that last quote Hollis continued... "The rest of Obama’s observations during this interview are just as asinine, and just as threatening. He says, “generally the Constitution is a charter 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 the state government must do on your behalf.”
This is deception.
As an initial matter, few listening to him would understand the gobbledygook, “negative liberties.”
But more importantly, he never explains that the United States Constitution is the oldest constitution in effect in the world. And that is no accident.
It is the oldest, because it is the only constitution I am aware of that is drafted the way it is.
Specifically, other constitutions list certain rights that the government conveys upon the people. Or, to put it as Obama did, the things “government must do on your behalf.”
Our Constitution, by contrast, has precisely the opposite construction.
We, the people, are presumed to have allthe rights, not just those written down in the Constitution. (And the Declaration of Independence states that these rights are “endowed by our Creator;” not by any government.) Lest this be unclear, the drafters of the Constitution put it in writing. [for emphasis] Lest this be unclear, the drafters of the Constitution put it in writing. Lest this be unclear, the drafters of the Constitution put it in writing.
The Ninth Amendment says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
And the Tenth Amendment goes further, stating explicitly that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”
Obama is engaging in dangerous demagoguery when he suggests that we the people of the United States need him – or the government he wants in place – to give us rights we don’t already have.
We don't need something we already have! - So butt out Barry E. Neuman!
this is a hilarious thread! So A President (Obama) who happens to be a Constitutional scholar hates the Constitution?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if the childhood makes the man I would ask what was your childhood like that would make you even consider this line of outrageous falsehoods to be even slightly worth consideration as truth 
