‘THE CONSTITUTION REFLECTS THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW OF THIS COUNTRY’
“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.” - Barack Obama
“The Charter of Negative Liberties.” Interesting term, isn’t it? It gets even more interesting when you realize it has a double-meaning to liberal elites. Technically speaking, the U.S. Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it is specific as to what the government cannot do. Moreover, those cannot-dos were clearly spelled out by the Framers for the precise purpose of protecting the American people from their government. The Founding Fathers were obviously quite fond of a little concept called individual liberty – and they strove to do their level best to protect it.
Therein lies the rub for liberals; the basic fact that the Constitution of the United States tells the government what it cannot do to the people – vs. what it can to them do is indeed restrictive to the cause of liberalism- and therefore negative in the hearts and minds of liberal-progressive elites.
Liberals tend to get most of society’ s rights and wrong backwards; the concept of liberty is no exception. In the mind of the Obama liberal, it is the government who must be protected – from the people. The rights of the few must be trampled upon in order to allow the government to protect – or deliver – the “rights” of the many. Rights as defined by the Democrat Party, that is. Unfortunately for liberals, that pesky Constitution often gets in their way.
This is the fundamental reason that many of today’s liberal elites claim the U.S. Constitution is an antiquated document – an outdated document ill-equipped to deal with the complexities of “modern-day” America. A document incapable of to substantiating and validating the socialist nanny state – the Nirvana of progressive ideology.
Therein lies Barack Obama’s disdain for the “blind spot” which – in his socialist mind – prohibited the Framers from understanding or foreseeing his grand view of the federal government’s role in redistributing the wealth of America. As a result, an “unelected group” – must not be allowed to stand in the way of the “duly-elected” Obama’s vision – and destiny. Liberals must rise up and challenge the very legitimacy of the Supreme Court if necessary – and that’s exactly what they will do before this whole thing is over; mark my words.
Many of my liberal friends tell me they would never have voted for Obama if they “had only known then” what they “know now.” The only way this conscience-clearing (face-saving) disclaimer can only be true, of course, is if these people didn’t listen to word candidate Obama said – choosing instead to get caught up in the Christ-like Aura of Obama – promulgated by the liberal media – and the savior himself. All that hope and change? Please. Barack Hussein Obama told us exactly what he believed – and exactly what he intended to do about it.
Candidate Obama in 2008: “Five days from now we will fundamentally change America.”
He’s trying his damnedest to do exactly what he said he would do, my liberal friends; are you listening yet?