There are a few quotes from this intervirew that I think are really important... In 2001, the local Public Radio Station in Chicago interviewed Obama and he talked about his thoughts on redistribution of wealth. Honestly, it is kind of scary that Obama... as a Constitutional Law Professor has NO respect for the Constitution:
- "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical," Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend. "It 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."
The Supreme Court... the body charged with the job of making sure that laws are aligned with the Constitution... didn't break free from the Constitution. Obama has already stated that his selections for the Supreme Court would need to "balance Social Justice" with the law... not follow the law.
- "And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document 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 state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.
D'uh. The Bill of Rights is specifically designed to protect the population by LIMITING the power of government. You limit power by telling people what they aren't allowed to do. You do NOT limit the power of the government by telling the people that the government is your Mommy.
So, we have a guy that is about the be President on the United States... and as such, will be sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. And this guy doesn't respect it, and doesn't seem to be able to figure out that the very framework of this country is for the government to be limited in scope.
And he is backed up by a guy, Joe Biden, that doesn't even know what his job is as defined by that same Constitution.
And just to make sure that they can do maximum damage, they will have the support of both houses of Congress...
I'd like to thank:
- the Republican Party for their amazing spending spree the last few years.
- the Obama voting populace that thinks that socialism is ok...
- the Mainstream media for giving the socialist a pass and not holding his ticket to the same standards as the GOP ticket.
For those that are liberal and think that Obama is a good idea... enjoy this time. There is a VERY good chance that in two years the country will lurch to the right in a GIANT way... and you should assume that Obama will be a one term President unless the GOP completely implodes. And it may take several generations for the country to recover from the damage done by the next administration.
Unless otherwise noted, all content of this blog is the property of Lane Bailey, ©2012 Lane Bailey.
I'd love to hear from you...
It would be interesting to hear Sarah Palin talk about the Supreme Court and Constitution in 2001. In 2008, she can name Roe v. Wade, but apparently still hasn't read much of Article 1 of the Constitution.
Thanks for sharing this blog and video feed I think it is important to get this out there for people to make informed decisions which ever way they decide. I re-blogged it I hope you do not mind... Thanks again, Diane
Hey, Lane. Thanks for sharing, I think that the video has been removed. I can only hope that Americans wake up and see him for what he is. Thanks, Jim
Jay - Perhaps you might consider reading Article I... specifically I would recomend Section 3. First, Obama is supposed to have been a Constitutional Law Professor... and yet, he thought that the Supreme Court didn't go far enough because they based their decisions on the Constitution.
Now, about your comment in regards to Palin. At the VP debates, when asked what the role of the VP is, she stated:
Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and [I] will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chooses to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.
Now, let's look at Article I, Section 3...
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
So, from this we see that the Vice President is the President of the Senate... and sets the agenda if they so choose. If you look at history, you will see that Thomas Jefferson was VERY involved in the Senate during his time as VP. Since he was also very involved in the writing of the constitution, I think his actions are quite notable.
The VP is also mentioned in Article II, Section 1...
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows...
That is what liberals are currently using as basis that the VP is ONLY part of the Executive Branch. Sorry, but that doesn't fly.
Would you like to look at Biden's answer?
Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.
And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive, and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.
Please note several things here. Aside from most of it being a tirade against Cheney, Biden got it wrong. He says "The Constitution is explicit." and yet, what is says does not line up with what he thought...
So, Jay. Care to defend your position now that the documents are laid out?
Diane - you are welcome to reblog this. Thank you.
Jim - The video just played for me.
Lane - thanks for getting to Article 1 - our buddy Jay stuck his foot in it on that one...Sarah was correct in her answer, Biden was wrong, even being in the senate for 36 years.....
Susan... no foot in my mouth.
Lane, you've outlined the Rush Limbaugh response.
The U.S. Senate website explains that the modern role of Vice Presidents has been to preside over the Senate "only on ceremonial occasions."According to Senior Assistant Parliamentarian Peter Robinson: "In modern practice the Vice President doesn't really control the Senate. ... If anyone has a responsibility to try to govern the Senate, it's the responsibility of the two leaders."
Jim Manley, spokesman for the Senate Majority Leader said of Palin's comment: "This comment is all the more puzzling because this is at least the 2nd time she has said this. Gov Palin needs to re-read or perhaps read for the first time the Constitution. While the Vice President presides over the Senate, he or she is not in charge of it." - Read more from the source.
Furthermore, as VP, with 60+/- Democrats in the Senate, Palin would have absolutely no "control".
Lane you can say what you will and interpret anything the way you want to interpret it, but 2001 was over 7 years ago and legal issues & opinions change in time. We'll see what happens, but it going to take several years for the country to recover from the 8 years of Bush administration! If the republicans lose control of Congress while losing the Presidency its their own fault! Barack Obama has made one thing clear in his campaign, that change is a coming!
Lane ~ I would like to point out that Sarah Palin is on the bottom of the ticket, whereas Barak Obama is on top of the ticket, with no foreign polcy experience, no leadership experience, as pointed out by his running mate...never been tested as a leader and all the liberals have to do is attack Sarah Palin, a sitting Governor of Alaska with executive experience far more vast than Biden or Obama put together.
Susan - Yep.
Jay - Again, read the Constitution. Biden's answer is wrong, according to the Constitution, and Palin's is right... according to the Constitution. Perhaps Jim Manley needs to read the Constitution. And as President of the Senate, she would have some control...
You see, here is a basic difference between liberals and conservative. You like SOME parts of the Constitution... like the 1st Amendment... but conveniently forget the 10th Amendment. If you remembered that one, almost EVERYTHING Obama says he wants to do would be unconstitutional.
Stephen - It is exactly in line with his current policies and beliefs. He thinks that the Supreme Court needs to go off of the Constitution in oreder to take property from people that earn it, and give it to people that don't. Now, he is going to try to stack the court with people that don't think that the Constitution is the law of the land... and then have the Democrat Congress send in laws to do just that...
Nicholas - True that...
Lane - I too blogged on this today. It is perhaps the most serious things to come out of his mouth and is a threat to our very way of life. As for him changing his views since 2001 (one of your commentators suggested that), then the proof that isn't so took place on a rope line just a couple of weeks ago when he met Joe the Plumber! He said EXACTLY the same thing about wealth redictribution to Joe as he said in that interview in 2001.
Jay - You're accomplishing little more than "outing" yourself as a slow learner with your insistence on perusing this "Palin doesn't know the Constitution" line - I set you straight on this nearly a week ago now, on your own post, here - 10/22/2008 12:45 AM by Jeff - and quoting ThinkProgress as the source for your lame attempt to keep spinning this is just comical! Didn't DailyKos have anything for you to site?
So, with Lane's permission, I'll try again -
Jay - Sorry, but it is you who is wrong here, not Palin. You are correct that Article 1, Section 3, states, "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided." But that is all it says - nothing more, and nothing less - with respect to the VP's Senate role.
And while there is a tradition in the Senate that the Vice President not use his or her position as President of the Senate to influence the passage of legislation or act in a partisan manner , it is only that - a tradition - there is nothing in law to prevent her (or him) from doing so.
It's easier to imagine the type of role the VP is entitled to take, and could take - should he or she wish to take a more active part than we've seen traditionally - by looking at the typical actions, behaviors and practices of the person who routinely stands in for the VP, when the VP isn't present in the Senate. That would of course be the Senate President pro tempore - the position currently held by Bobby "KKK" Byrd, Democrat (WV).
Here's the definition of the Senate President pro tempore - A constitutionally recognized officer of the Senate who presides over the chamber in the absence of the Vice President. - from here, http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/president_pro_tempore.htm
Other than not having a vote, except to break a tie, Palin would be 100% within her rights to do everything else that Cheney's stand-in (Bobby "KKK" Byrd), routinely does in the Senate - and more. I'd love to see her get in there and tweak some noses, and kick some butt - and she would have every right - legally - to do so.
Simon - I know that he hasn't changed. He hasn't changed since he was training ACORN workers...
Jeff - Please note that the liberal press and news sources are using the opinions of Democrats as the basis of their posts and articles. They won't cite the Constitution because it doesn't support their position.