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.
Obama had 100,000 yesterday in Denver.This video has over 1 million views in (one) day.
1.43 million
It's on a vast majority of news sites.....I wonder why he waited so long to let the cat out of the bag?
Norman Thomas
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
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 its been interpreted and the Warren Court interpreted it 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 it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf and that hasn't shifted.
And one of the I think the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court focused I think that 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 coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that."
So, if the Constitution doesn't saywhat the Federal government or state government must do on your behalf, Obama seems to be saying that here's a loophole in the Constitution that he and a Democrat Congress plan to use. They will be glad to decide what the government "must do" on our behalf, and he'll appoint judges to accomplish that.
If this is indeed his plan, what would you expect are "the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change" other than that?
This is a chilling thought. Is this the kind of "change" we would want? It opens up the interpretation of the Constitution to all kinds of things that would dicate what the government MUST do "on our behalf" (as determined by the powerful few, of course.) (and this would include reparations, if the Court ruled that government must do this, and Obama ends up NOT breaking his promise. Cool, huh?)
Still think it went over my head?
Yes.
Please see the explanations posted at this law blog by two different law school professors below:
Anewperson...reads excellent blogs. Thats where I go to get good legal analysis of issues.
"Based on this interview, it seems unlikely that Obama opposes constitutionalizing the redistributive agenda because he's an originalist, or otherwise endorses the Constitution as a "charter of negative liberties," though he explicitly recognizes that this is how the Constitution has been interpreted since the Founding. Rather, he seems to think that focusing on litigation distracts liberal activists from necessary political organizing, and that any radical victories they might manage to win from the courts would be unstable because those decisions wouldn't have public backing. The way to change judicial decisions, according to Obama, is to change the underlying political and social dynamics; changes in the law primarily follow changes in society, not vice versa. Again, he's channeling Rosenberg and Klarman. And this attitude on Obama's part shouldn't be surprising, given that he decided to go into politics rather than become a full-time University of Chicago constitutional law professor, as he was offered. Had he been committed to the idea that courts are at the forefront of social change, he would have been inclined to take a potentially very influential position at Chicago. (And judging from this interview, he would likely have been a great con law professor, both as a teacher and scholar, and, had he been so inclined, legal activist.)
"
Just confirms what I said.....It did go over your head.
It's on a vast majority of news sites.....I wonder why he waited so long to let the cat out of the bag?
Norman Thomas
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
Yep, I'm afraid that if 0 gets elected with a supermajority in both houses there's gonna be some big ol cows that ain't going back in the barn. Maybe it'll be good enough to go Libertarian in four years.
Anewperson...reads excellent blogs. Thats where I go to get good legal analysis of issues.
"Based on this interview, it seems unlikely that Obama opposes constitutionalizing the redistributive agenda because he's an originalist, or otherwise endorses the Constitution as a "charter of negative liberties," though he explicitly recognizes that this is how the Constitution has been interpreted since the Founding. Rather, he seems to think that focusing on litigation distracts liberal activists from necessary political organizing, and that any radical victories they might manage to win from the courts would be unstable because those decisions wouldn't have public backing. The way to change judicial decisions, according to Obama, is to change the underlying political and social dynamics; changes in the law primarily follow changes in society, not vice versa. Again, he's channeling Rosenberg and Klarman. And this attitude on Obama's part shouldn't be surprising, given that he decided to go into politics rather than become a full-time University of Chicago constitutional law professor, as he was offered. Had he been committed to the idea that courts are at the forefront of social change, he would have been inclined to take a potentially very influential position at Chicago. (And judging from this interview, he would likely have been a great con law professor, both as a teacher and scholar, and, had he been so inclined, legal activist.)
"
Just confirms what I said.....It did go over your head.
Not so. The above is just opinion and somebody's perspective, not necessarily complete or correct. Obama speaks of "social and political justice" and that will come down through the courts if Obama gets to appoint his judges. There are large segments of society that are ready for "social and political justice" that is, as they see it, long overdue.
Radical elements on the left have fueled these feelings of social and political injustice to make certain that the issues are kept alive and well.
Not so. The above is just opinion and somebody's perspective, not necessarily complete or correct. Obama speaks of "social and political justice" and that will come down through the courts if Obama gets to appoint his judges. There are large segments of society that are ready for "social and political justice" that is, as they see it, long overdue.
Radical elements on the left have fueled these feelings of social and political injustice to make certain that the issue kept alive and well.
No it's not "just somebody" the man that wrote that is a Prof. of Law at George Mason University. He refutes exactly what you are claiming
"All that said, there is no doubt from the interview that he supports "redistributive change," a phrase he uses at approximately the 41.20 mark in a context that makes it clear that he is endorsing the redistribution of wealth by the government through the political process.
What I don't understand is why this is surprising, or interesting enough to be headlining Drudge [UPDATE: Beyond the fact that Drudge's headline suggests, wrongly, that Obama states that the Supreme Court should have ordered the redistribution of income; as Orin says, his views on the subject, beyond that it was an error to promote this agenda in historical context, are unclear.]. At least since the passage of the first peacetime federal income tax law about 120 years ago, redistribution of wealth has been a (maybe the) primary item on the left populist/progressive/liberal agenda, and has been implicitly accepted to some extent by all but the most libertarian Republicans as well. Barack Obama is undoubtedly liberal, and his background is in political community organizing in poor communities. Is it supposed to be a great revelation that Obama would like to see wealth more "fairly" distributed than it is currently?
BTW what are your credentials?..or are you just "somebody".
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.
I don't think so, but OK. Let's look at it again. 
"it's not that radical" says Obama. 
