Its Worth Repeating … Barack Obama’s ‘Redistribution’ Constitution … Will Obama preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution?
Elections do matter. For eight years Senate Democrats thwarted efforts by President Bush to appoint judges to the lower federal courts. Now on the verge of a Democratic controlled House, Senate and Presidency the courts are about to swing far left as Obama will look to appoint judges who legislate from the bench. In the wake of Barack Obama’s 2001 audio interview, all voters should take pause and have deep concern. Obama’s change is radical socialism. This Socialism will come from the Legislative, Executive and now it appears from the Judicial branch as well.
Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: “[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”
On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.
In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society,” and “to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”
He also noted that the Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.” That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government — and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.
Another troubling question is brought forth by The Wallstreet Journal and whether Obama can appropriately take the oath to defend the Constitution.
This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare?
You decide … Is this the change that America really needs?