The Constitution and Obama

The Constitution of the United States of America is the only thing that has ensured that this country has been the freest nation in the world for the past 232 years. The forefathers of this great republic wrote a brilliant document that safeguards the citizens of this country against tyranny and absolute power by any one person or group. If all else fails, the Constitution is the backstop, the impenetrable wall that protects our freedom and civil liberties. This country has seen moderate, liberal, and conservative presidents and congresses, but they have all adhered–at times, reluctantly– to the separation of powers and the checks and balances provided by this remarkable document.
With such a powerful document defending our inalienable rights, it is easy to imagine how most Americans do not fear the erosion of those rights. Even if Barack Obama turns out to be as extreme as his past associations and friends apparently are, the Constitution would prevent him from dismantling our free and democratic society. That is, I believe, what makes Obama palatable to those who have decided to vote for him yet do not feel comfortable with his past associations or his Marxist rhetoric. The Constitution, they believe, would prevent an Obama administration from taking absolute control, and in theory they would be correct.
But what happens when the president believes the Constitution is fundamentally flawed?
For our Constitution to do its intended task of protecting us, our government must believe in it and adhere to it. And here is where an Obama presidency gets scary. As you can see from this interview from 2001, Obama believes that the Constitution has a fundamental flaw.

If Obama believes our Constitution has a fundamental flaw, why would he then feel bound by its tenets?
It is a question that everyone who votes on November 4th should ask themselves.

23 thoughts on “The Constitution and Obama”

  1. I think he was referring to the idea that the Constitution only states what the government can’t do in regards to a person’s rights, and not what it can do. I disagree with him on that. It states that the purpose is to protect via common defense and support free trade. Everything else is freedom to pursue your happiness and livelihood.

  2. If you’re voting for McCain and voted for Bush you really can’t say anything about the constitution. Bush wiped his ass with it for the past 8 years and McCain supported it without raising any questions.

    How anyone can support warrentless wiretaps is beyond comprehension. That’s the government inside your house watching your every move. That’s a real cause for concern. You’re willing to give away even more of your privacy all because you’re scared of the big bad terrorists.

  3. Keyrat,
    How appropriate your name is!
    No one is watching MY every move. Or yours apparently. Because if they are, they are not doing a good job of it, since it doesn’t seem to have hampered you in any way.
    We are at war whether you want to believe or not. In wartime, some people have to be suspicious. Not me, not you, not my friends who feel so frightened of this administration, not any of those who blatantly hate Bush and company. Nobody is threatened by Bush except those who call suspicious countries or do things that are not very bright when we are at war.
    But what I DO know is that when Palin was nominated, lies of all kinds pervaded the msm; everyone tried to ruin her reputation. This was only because she does not spout the reigning orthodoxy. Joe the plumber had his life turned upside down because, as a private citizen he asked a question. I am not able to open my mouth even to have a reasonable dialogue because my opinions are unpleasant to my Kool Aid drinking friends. Don’t dare ask Biden a question he doesn’t like, or say something Obama doesn’t like. Either you are shunned or you are vilified. And if, as a candidate, you try to state the obvious about your opponent, you are engaging in negative campaigning or racism. Give me a break.
    I see none of my friends or you being harmed by opinions or public advocacy against this administration. The Obama signs all over my neighborhood are not defaced. But if I ever do see defacement, it is of a McCain sign, of which, I am happy to say, there are a lot.
    I fear a coming Obama rule. A man who thinks our constitution is flawed – implication, he’ll be glad to fix it for us – who wants to redistribute wealth instead of create it, who thinks America is not what it should be, who blames America for setting a bad example to the world, and who has friends and advisers who feel just the way he does, this is a scary person. I love this country. Whatever complaints I have about McCain, pale in comparison to my terror of what an Obama administration would do to change my country for the worst.

  4. A man who thinks our constitution is flawed – implication, he’ll be glad to fix it for us – who wants to redistribute wealth instead of create it, who thinks America is not what it should be, who blames America for setting a bad example to the world, and who has friends and advisers who feel just the way he does, this is a scary person
    If America is fine as it is, then why hold elections?
    Yes, our Constitution is flawed: that’s why the states have ratified 27 amendments.

  5. Awww public opinion is not on your side this time around? Cry me a river. Now you know what it was like for us in March 2003.
    The bottom line is that you have justified to yourself the government spying on its citizens without a warrant (why can’t they just get a warrant?), which is in direct violation of the 4th amendment. Luckily our own congress was not as convinced as you and implemented a law which actually required a warrant, even if it is only required a week after the taps start.
    I understand your Obama concerns but dismissing something like this just shows you are more concerned with politics switching from right to left than you are with actual cases of the constitution being violated.

  6. Duke,
    Obama stated the constitution was “fundamentally flawed”, meaning, that its premise in and of itself is wrong.
    Unwad your panties. Warrantless wiretaps have been around a long long time. Way before the evil Chimpy McHitlerBurton decided to use them as a surveillance weapon against people that want to kill you and your family. And, moreover, Ive heard very few complaints about “the right to privacy” of Joe the Plumber, whose been investigated and surveilled and has his privacy violated tenfold more than most known terrorists.

  7. Keyrat:
    Spare me your and DailyKos rants about warrant-less wiretaps. Did Roosevelt get a warrant before intercepting Nazi communications outside and inside the US?
    That is the problem with you liberals, you have no idea what a war is. You live in your fantasy world where everyone is wonderful and if we could only talk to each other, everything would be beautiful and peaceful.
    The funny thing is that the liberal idols, like Che, Castro, Stalin, Lenin, were much too smart to allow your world vision to make any difference.
    Sigue durmiendo de ese lado de la cama.

  8. You guys are right, it’s of no concern. Don’t even fret for a second that Obama could be the one in charge of making warrantless wiretaps come January.

  9. Keyrat,
    Come November, should Obama be elected, warrantless wiretaps wil be the absolute least of our problems.

  10. I think everyone has missed the point of what the Self Appointed Messiah has said. He’s said that the Constitution does not provide a means in an of itself and neither do the courts to promulgate wealth redistribution.
    His objective can only be accomplished via the legislative process through entitlement programs and taxes.
    Keyrat, who made you an expert on the 4th amendment? Read any 4th amendment cases recently? Do you have any clue about what your talking about?
    Frankly, I would fear Obama more than I do Bush at the hands of the Justice Department and the CIA. Texas politics pale in comparison to Chicago style politics.

  11. Thin, I truly believe that working in the wasp’s nest of leftist ideology (pun intended) that FIU has become has left you a little addled in the cabeza.
    Let me paint a picture for you: Obama gets elected, two, maybe three, Supreme Court justices retire, and many Federal Appellate judges as well. Obama and his Central Committee, er, I mean Congress, with their majority in the House and filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, begin passing all sorts of new laws that begin to pass muster with the Judicial branch. This is not a short-term thing. If that doesn’t work, he has the power of the Executive Order at his disposal, and he will exercise it like every President before him has. This is a very scary scenario when the candidate you are talking about is a committed Marxist who is “disappointed” in our Constitution.
    Please, dude, WAKE THE FUCK UP!

  12. Amazing. I post a legit violation of the constitution, so much so that congress had to pass a law granting retroactive immunity to the telcos, and you guys dismiss it without a care in the world.
    You guys don’t give a shit about the constitution, you only care about your candidate being in the right and the alternative being in the wrong.

  13. keyrat,
    Do you agree with Obama in that the constitution is “fundamentally flawed?”
    Because if you dont, then one particular amendment shouldnt be all that youre concerned about. You should concern yourself with the entirety of the document in and of itself and ALL of its amendments.
    but, alas, while you point fingers and take the “high road” with commnents like “you guys are only concerned about your candidate and yadayadayada,” you yourself are priving to only be concerned with Bush and the warrantless wiretaps, which should be a moot point since obviously and as youve taken the time here ad nauseum to explain to us dumbasses it was already “proven” that it didnt pass muster with the SC. So lets just set that aside now, mmkay?

  14. Key Rat tell me one example where your rights have purportedly been violated. Give me evidence and not hearsay crap you read in the papers.
    If you present me evidence, then I’ll represent you. If not, then don’t waste our time.

  15. Keyrat, I wonder if government agents want to sit around and listen to your boring, ordinary conversations about everyday life. Just imagine all the stuff you say on the phone and who would be interested in listening to them. Please! And if you were so concerned about some government agent listening to your opinions, then you wouldn’t be posting on the net for all the world to see. I mean, I could be a government agent. LOL

  16. HEY FOLKS. Just a quick notice that I don’t think “KeyRat” is the “Cuban KeyRat” that posts comments here at Babalu regularly. Just so people don’t get confused.

  17. This is pure conjecture, since the person who made that video clip sliced the quote out of context and won’t provide a citation, but this is my hypothesis for what Obama was talking about. I think that he was referring to the three-fifths compromise, through which the racial prejudices of the founders were represented in the United States constitution:
    “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
    Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution recognizes slavery, and decrees that slaves are counted as three-fifths of a person with regard to United States congressional representatives, and taxation.
    I can imagine a lot of contexts in which Obama could have referred to the “fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day that is reflected in the constitution” that don’t involve Obama referring to the constitution itself as the fundamental flaw. And that’s just one of them. But the people condemning Obama based on the audio clip don’t even know what he was talking about. So what are they condemning? Maybe they’re arguing in favor of slavery without even realizing it, by condemning a statement that they’ve never heard.

Comments are closed.