<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Obama in 2001: The Constitution Has A &#8220;fundamental flaw&#8221; Because It Did Not Demand the Redistribution of Wealth and It is A &#8220;Tragedy&#8221; that the Courts Did Not Change That</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/10/27/obama-in-2001-the-constitution-has-a-fundamental-flaw-because-it-did-not-demand-the-redistribution-of-wealth-and-it-is-a-tragedy-that-the-courts-did-not-change-that/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/10/27/obama-in-2001-the-constitution-has-a-fundamental-flaw-because-it-did-not-demand-the-redistribution-of-wealth-and-it-is-a-tragedy-that-the-courts-did-not-change-that/</link>
	<description>Delivering the Best of the New Media Since 2004.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:08:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: fostert</title>
		<link>http://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/10/27/obama-in-2001-the-constitution-has-a-fundamental-flaw-because-it-did-not-demand-the-redistribution-of-wealth-and-it-is-a-tragedy-that-the-courts-did-not-change-that/comment-page-1/#comment-671895</link>
		<dc:creator>fostert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:38:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=6331#comment-671895</guid>
		<description>Obama was talking about how the courts have traditionally not been involved in such issues, and how they shouldn&#039;t be involved in it. His lament was that liberals spent too much effort on changing the courts, instead of working through the legislature.  You can misrepresent the interview to you readers all you want.  But will you answer this?  Obama made a strong case for the traditional Republican argument that changes in the law are best done through legislation, not the courts.  Do you disagree with that? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obama was talking about how the courts have traditionally not been involved in such issues, and how they shouldn&#039;t be involved in it. His lament was that liberals spent too much effort on changing the courts, instead of working through the legislature.  You can misrepresent the interview to you readers all you want.  But will you answer this?  Obama made a strong case for the traditional Republican argument that changes in the law are best done through legislation, not the courts.  Do you disagree with that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: le combat</title>
		<link>http://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/10/27/obama-in-2001-the-constitution-has-a-fundamental-flaw-because-it-did-not-demand-the-redistribution-of-wealth-and-it-is-a-tragedy-that-the-courts-did-not-change-that/comment-page-1/#comment-671846</link>
		<dc:creator>le combat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:01:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=6331#comment-671846</guid>
		<description>Obama is the kind of person/government that the founders was preventing ever in attaining power.   
 
&quot;In 1911 Booker T. Washington wrote in My Larger Education, Being Chapters from My Experience the following: 
&#039;There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs &#8212; partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs.&#039;&quot; 
 
Obama uses this plight to empower himself not others. 
 
Interesting to see how ex-slaves viewed the Constitution themselves. 
 
&quot;Frederick Douglass [6], in an 1852 speech, intoned: 
&#039;Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither.&#039; 
And later he told his audience: 
&#039;Now, take the constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.&#039;&quot; 
 
Take that Obama.  Those quotes are priceless and reveal what you sir so lack - love of America. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obama is the kind of person/government that the founders was preventing ever in attaining power.  </p>
<p>&quot;In 1911 Booker T. Washington wrote in My Larger Education, Being Chapters from My Experience the following:</p>
<p>&#039;There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs &mdash; partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs.&#039;&quot;</p>
<p>Obama uses this plight to empower himself not others.</p>
<p>Interesting to see how ex-slaves viewed the Constitution themselves.</p>
<p>&quot;Frederick Douglass [6], in an 1852 speech, intoned:</p>
<p>&#039;Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither.&#039;</p>
<p>And later he told his audience:</p>
<p>&#039;Now, take the constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.&#039;&quot;</p>
<p>Take that Obama.  Those quotes are priceless and reveal what you sir so lack &#8211; love of America.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BIG BROTHER</title>
		<link>http://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/10/27/obama-in-2001-the-constitution-has-a-fundamental-flaw-because-it-did-not-demand-the-redistribution-of-wealth-and-it-is-a-tragedy-that-the-courts-did-not-change-that/comment-page-1/#comment-671843</link>
		<dc:creator>BIG BROTHER</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=6331#comment-671843</guid>
		<description>Sen. Obama needs to reread the Constitution: 
 
1.The Constitution DOES outline what the Federal government is to do for the people. Read the Preamble.  
 
2. The teneth ammendment grants any powers not specifically given to the Federal government to the State or People. 
 
3. The founders were visionary and humble enough to realize that their document was not &quot;perfect&quot; which is why we have the Ammendment process Article five. 
 
4. His &quot;redistribution of wealth&quot; comments based on civil rights are clearly a form of REPARATIONS for slavery and unjust treatment of Black Americans. As he clearly feels that 3 ammendments, equal rights and opportunnity is not enough. 
 
News flash Sen. Obama....You are likely days away from being elected President. You are supposed to represent ALL americans not just Black Americans. Such an attitude will only prevent the healing process. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sen. Obama needs to reread the Constitution:</p>
<p>1.The Constitution DOES outline what the Federal government is to do for the people. Read the Preamble. </p>
<p>2. The teneth ammendment grants any powers not specifically given to the Federal government to the State or People.</p>
<p>3. The founders were visionary and humble enough to realize that their document was not &quot;perfect&quot; which is why we have the Ammendment process Article five.</p>
<p>4. His &quot;redistribution of wealth&quot; comments based on civil rights are clearly a form of REPARATIONS for slavery and unjust treatment of Black Americans. As he clearly feels that 3 ammendments, equal rights and opportunnity is not enough.</p>
<p>News flash Sen. Obama&#8230;.You are likely days away from being elected President. You are supposed to represent ALL americans not just Black Americans. Such an attitude will only prevent the healing process.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jimmie</title>
		<link>http://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/10/27/obama-in-2001-the-constitution-has-a-fundamental-flaw-because-it-did-not-demand-the-redistribution-of-wealth-and-it-is-a-tragedy-that-the-courts-did-not-change-that/comment-page-1/#comment-671818</link>
		<dc:creator>Jimmie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:28:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=6331#comment-671818</guid>
		<description>Oh nonsense. 
 
You want me to believe that what Obama was really saying is that the Warren Court really wasn&#039;t racial because it didn&#039;t address slavery?? 
 
Please. He uses the phrase &quot;redistributive&quot; to refer both to the Constitution and the decisions of the Warren Court. He&#039;s not talking about slavery but about the same old &quot;social justice&quot; that progressives have been pushing since the early 1900s. You have to really work hard to hear anything else. 
 
Or replace common sense with Obama campaign spin. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh nonsense.</p>
<p>You want me to believe that what Obama was really saying is that the Warren Court really wasn&#039;t racial because it didn&#039;t address slavery??</p>
<p>Please. He uses the phrase &quot;redistributive&quot; to refer both to the Constitution and the decisions of the Warren Court. He&#039;s not talking about slavery but about the same old &quot;social justice&quot; that progressives have been pushing since the early 1900s. You have to really work hard to hear anything else.</p>
<p>Or replace common sense with Obama campaign spin.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FatRichie</title>
		<link>http://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/10/27/obama-in-2001-the-constitution-has-a-fundamental-flaw-because-it-did-not-demand-the-redistribution-of-wealth-and-it-is-a-tragedy-that-the-courts-did-not-change-that/comment-page-1/#comment-671816</link>
		<dc:creator>FatRichie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:13:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=6331#comment-671816</guid>
		<description>The fact that you actually found the entire interview and STILL completely misconstrued what was said means you either weren&#039;t listening very well, or you intentionally want to make Obama look bad.  Only you know the answer to that, Jimmie, 
 
It amuses and frightens me that so many of your readers will be willing to take the 28 second clip and draw completely outlandish conclusions from it, with no idea of its context. 
 
What Obama is was referring to as a &quot;fundamental flaw&quot; of the Constitution is that the document made economic concessions on a moral issue: slavery.  In other words, slavery was not outlawed in the initial writing of the constitution because of the threatened loss of support of pro-slave states. 
 
HE TALKING ABOUT SLAVERY, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! 
 
For the original context of the conversation, the comment is made about 45 minutes into the interview, though I&#039;d advise that folks actually listen to the WHOLE THING, because not only is it a very interesting topic, but also because IT PROVIDES CONTEXT FOR OBAMA&#039;s COMMENTS. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The fact that you actually found the entire interview and STILL completely misconstrued what was said means you either weren&#039;t listening very well, or you intentionally want to make Obama look bad.  Only you know the answer to that, Jimmie,</p>
<p>It amuses and frightens me that so many of your readers will be willing to take the 28 second clip and draw completely outlandish conclusions from it, with no idea of its context.</p>
<p>What Obama is was referring to as a &quot;fundamental flaw&quot; of the Constitution is that the document made economic concessions on a moral issue: slavery.  In other words, slavery was not outlawed in the initial writing of the constitution because of the threatened loss of support of pro-slave states.</p>
<p>HE TALKING ABOUT SLAVERY, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!</p>
<p>For the original context of the conversation, the comment is made about 45 minutes into the interview, though I&#039;d advise that folks actually listen to the WHOLE THING, because not only is it a very interesting topic, but also because IT PROVIDES CONTEXT FOR OBAMA&#039;s COMMENTS.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Served from: www.sundriesshack.com @ 2012-02-10 05:16:17 by W3 Total Cache -->
