re: #827 avanti

” Obama does speak positively of “redistributive change,” but he doesn’t describe its absence as a tragedy. In fact, what Obama actually said was that “one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused.” It is a focus on the courts that Obama says is tragic, not the lack of redistribution of wealth. Had the movement engaged in more traditional politicking and organizing, he said, it might have been able to achieve more on that front.”

Talk about spin.

Allow me to repeat the real Obama pull quote here:

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.

Which part of this don’t you understand? Obama clearly believes the Constitution is flawed because it’s only a charter of “negative liberties”. I happen to believe that’s one of the document’s great enduring STRENGTHS. And he thinks it’s problematic that the Constitution doesn’t spell out a long bill of social welfare “rights”. Again… he either fundamentally misunderstands the document, or seems to be fundmentally pining for a very different kind of constitution.

By the way, on those “positive rights”? I was skimming through the Honduran Constitution yesterday, in light of current events. Obama would love it… it’s got all sorts of wonderful positive rights “guaranteed” to the Honduran citizens. How’s that worked out for them? (2008 per capita GDP: $4,400)