"Break free from the essential restraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution"
If nothing else convinces you that this man is Anti-American, perhaps the fact that he wants to "Break Free" from the Constitution might. This quote is from 2001. Does anyone imagine this man has "essentially" changed?
Send this to everyone you know. This is our last moment, our last chance to avoid this Fascist from becoming the President of the United States.
"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, 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 its been interpreted and 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, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think 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 coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. …
I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way."
This man is not the next Jimmy Carter, he is the next Woodrow Wilson....or Benito Mussolini. He is the man Jonah Goldberg warned us against in Liberal Fascism. It is coming true before our very eyes.
If this man is elected, he cannot honestly take the oath to "defend the Constitution", because he wants to undermine it...he wants to change it....he wants to abandon it.
We have been warned.
UPDATE: World Net Daily has the story. And links. Check it out.
The Gunslinger
http://www.superkids.com/aweb/pages/features/netporn/amndmnts.htm
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what your point is there, Jag.
ReplyDeleteThe man said he thinks the court should have gone past the "essential restraints" the Founders put in the constitution.
I'd appreciate it if he didn't try to outthink the founders. He's not up to it.
The "negative" rights are precisely all we want: telling government that it CAN'T do anything other than what the Constitution specifically allows it to do.
Those "negative" rights guarantee our freedom FROM government which is the American way. I don't want the Government "doing what we can't do for ourselves" except "provide for the common defense" maybe.
Who is he talking to, what can't they do for themselves? Hold down a job? Make a living? Pay their own way? Save money instead of charging everything because they gotta HAVE IT? Putting their kids through college? Buying them a house? Paying their mortgage? Being responsible for their health?
So many things some people "cannot do for themselves."
Where, exactly will it end? And who does he expect to PAY for it all?
The government has no money. It can only steal it from those who earn it.
I don't want the government stealing my money to buy you a house.
No offense.