[Disproved] U.S. Constitution a 'Deeply Flawed' document

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I heard about this last night and I was surprised to see no one has posted it yet on here. This was a comment Obama made in 2001 on a Chicago public radio program.


Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama described the U.S. Constitution as having “deep flaws” during a September 2001 Chicago public radio program, adding that the country’s Founding Fathers had “an enormous blind spot” when they wrote it.

Obama also remarked that the Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

Obama’s statements came during a panel discussion that aired on Chicago’s WBEZ-FM on Sept. 6, 2001, titled “Slavery and the Constitution.”

The discussion that led to the statements took place on the now-defunct Odyssey program, which also aired statements by Obama bemoaning the fact that the Civil Rights movement had failed to bring about an economic redistribution of wealth in America.


They did play the audio excerpt from the 2001 program last night on the radio, and I'm looking for it now. If anyone can find it, please post.

Source: www.newsmax.com...



[edit on 28-10-2008 by sos37]




posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
The constituition is deeply flawed and they did indeed know it at the time... its not an issue it's the efforts of each generation to work out those flaws that make it a living document, not as bush minor said... a "GD piece of paper."



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
The constituition is deeply flawed and they did indeed know it at the time... its not an issue it's the efforts of each generation to work out those flaws that make it a living document, not as bush minor said... a "GD piece of paper."


We're not talking about Bush anymore as his term of Office is almost over. And I agree that obviously we don't want someone in office that regards the Constitution as a "piece of paper", but I also take exception to the implication that it is 'deeply flawed' as of 2001 with all of the amendments added to it. It's not perfect and no law or set of rules will ever be perfect as there is no possible way to satisfy every person all of the time. But the Constitution of the U.S. is a masterpiece, brilliantly written and carefully amended.

I don't see the Constitution as flawed at all. But Obama's comments really have me concerned that he will be appointing new people to the Supreme Court that will be attempting to MAKE new Constitutional law, not interpret it.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by sos37]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Has anyone bothered to seek out the actual comments in context?




The original constitution is a remarkable document...

...it reflects deep flaws in the colonial culture of that time...



Also, you've incorrectly quoted him in the subject line of your thread, as he never said the constitution was "Deeply Flawed."



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


I brought bush minor up only for that comment of his, not to discuss him.

Actually the founding fathers knew it was deeply flawed and banked on those very flaws to keep one branch or the other from gaining too much power.

The tug of war between the legislative branch and the executive as well as the judicial is what keeps it from ossifiying into a monolithic structure with all of the power concentrated in one branch.

'For example we are coming out of a period of a dominate presidency (bush minor) Whomever is elected, Democrat or Republican will be facing a resergent congress and will have a much rougher time of it.

The flaws in the constituition is what keeps it relevant.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Another damn lie smearing Obama. If Obama is so bad and dangerous why do republicans have to constantly lie about him?



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I don't think anyone can read the constitution in it's entirety and and not come to the conclusion that it was, and still is flawed. For example, the fonding fathers recognized that slavery was morally wrong, but considering the economic realities of the times and the desire to bring together the original thirteen states, it was recognized as a necessary evil, one that was later corrected.
The constitution is meant to be a living document, one that grows and changes with the times, all the while maintianing the balance of power via the advesarial positon between the Executive, Legislative, and the Judicail branch.
However, I fear we now face a horrible delima. We stand to have a Sociaist Democrat elected as President, with an extremely democratic congress in power, and a generally conservative court, with enough swing votes, that the entire focus of this country could be changed.
Our only hope is that, if Obama is elected and he decides to change the constitution, that he does it legally, amendent, with the appropriate steps being taken.
My fear is that within six months, he will find some way to declare Martial Law nationwide, (which is lillegal and unconstitunail) and establish himself as a socialist dictator. At that point he will totally nationalize the banks, the oil companies, the power companies, and begin to go house to house, confiscating what ever he chooses.
In short, I fear for the Republic.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by damwel
 

LIes? The man wants to resdistribute income. Lies? The man assoicates with known terrotist and Slum Lord Gangsters, whom he has taken money from. (and don't tell me he didn't know. If he's as smart as he, and all of his assciates say, then there is NO WAY he could not have known. Everytime he gets caught in a lie, he waffles around and changes his story. Hell, he's worse that The Great Embarrassment From the Great State of Arkansas. (I never thought I would have to say that.)
He is charismatic, but his speeches are nothing but empty rhetoric. I have no Idea who he is, what he truly belives, or what he stands for. THe man scares the livin' hell out of me.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
I also take exception to the implication that it is 'deeply flawed' as of 2001 with all of the amendments added to it. It's not perfect and no law or set of rules will ever be perfect as there is no possible way to satisfy every person all of the time. But the Constitution of the U.S. is a masterpiece, brilliantly written and carefully amended.
[edit on 28-10-2008 by sos37]


Isn't that kind of a contradictory thought? You take offense to the idea that the Constitution is flawed, but admit that it is not perfect; therefore it must be flawed. Perhaps perfectly flawed? Its not perfect, but it can't be written to satisfy all of the people all of the time, but if it is a masterpiece it shouldn't have to be amended...

The question I ask is, is the Constitution a living document, that should change with the times, or is it dogma that should be set in stone?


Originally posted by sos37
I don't see the Constitution as flawed at all. But Obama's comments really have me concerned that he will be appointing new people to the Supreme Court that will be attempting to MAKE new Constitutional law, not interpret it.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by sos37]


And this is the same fear that people on the left have had with Bush's appointments, as those on the right feared with Clinton's appointments, as people on the left feared with HW Bush and Reagan's appointments...and in all cases, the side opposing those in power felt that those in power overstepped the boundaries and made unconstitutional decisions.

I for one applaud Obama and agree that the Constitution is very flawed. In fact, since the Bush Admin. has decided to utterly scrap the Constitution anyway, this only leads me to the conclusion that it is time that all politicians and scholars come together and take a real, honest look at what America has become and try to determine where we can go. Honestly, I think that the best thing that could happen right now in America is for a new Constitutional Convention to be called and a new Constitution written...and if that means the disolving of America because the two sides can't come to a compromise, so be it...because I'll tell you what...if the 50%+1 electoral trend continues...there will be hell to pay eventually.

We need rationality in politics...not dogma...not extremes.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Has anyone bothered to seek out the actual comments in context?




The original constitution is a remarkable document...

...it reflects deep flaws in the colonial culture of that time...



Also, you've incorrectly quoted him in the subject line of your thread, as he never said the constitution was "Deeply Flawed."


Hold on a sec, I listened to what you posted and that's not the same clip that was played on the radio last night. What you posted sounds like a much more recent clip of Obama explaining his comment from 2001.

Also, I'm quoting a news article directly from what they said. I'll see if I can find a recording of the original radio broadcast from 2001.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
I don't think anyone can read the constitution in it's entirety and and not come to the conclusion that it was, and still is flawed. For example, the fonding fathers recognized that slavery was morally wrong, but considering the economic realities of the times and the desire to bring together the original thirteen states, it was recognized as a necessary evil, one that was later corrected.
The constitution is meant to be a living document, one that grows and changes with the times, all the while maintianing the balance of power via the advesarial positon between the Executive, Legislative, and the Judicail branch.


This part of your statement was right on the money... the balance was misinformed. Obama would have never gotten this far, the powers that be would not have allowed it, if he were a socialist.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Okay, so after some checking on the Laura Ingraham website, the radio show I was listening to last night, I replayed the broadcast and noticed there was a cut (a blank spot) in the radio broadcast at the time when he was describing the Constitution.

On the Rush Limbaugh site, he has audio of the 2001 broadcast and the blank spot isn't there, so I'm led to conclude that someone was doing some creative doctoring.

I'll change the title of this post to something more appropriate since there is no evidence that he said the 'Constitution' itself was deeply flawed. As for the redistribution of wealth, that's for the other thread going on the Breaking News forum.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
many will disagree with me but...

i beleive the constitution should always have flaws, not great big ones, but ones that urge the common people to stand together against certain parts of it at all times, to have common grounds together, and also to keep the idea that government is a threat to the people instilled in our minds so that we always will have the mindset our great founding fathers had...

i can't say i agree with obama because he has not elaborated on what colonial issues or whatever he thinks were represented in the constitution,

but i do think if we had a perfect document ( which really is impossible to create ) it would be bad, it would be similiar to right now where most people are not able to see past what the government says and just beleive everything and don't know how to stand up for what they beleive because they have never had to, and this gives the government too much control, which thomas jefferson always warned us about.... so at least right now there are some small groups of people that KNOW,

eeh if that's too vague i understand and can elaborate



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by indigothefish
 


I agree with you fully, if the constituition were prefect it would become a social prison with no wiggle room to grow and change.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Has anyone bothered to seek out the actual comments in context?




The original constitution is a remarkable document...

...it reflects deep flaws in the colonial culture of that time...



Also, you've incorrectly quoted him in the subject line of your thread, as he never said the constitution was "Deeply Flawed."



by chance do you know what deep flaws of the culture he is refering to?

i can't think of anything besides, slavery?



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Besides slavery quite a few... those without property could not vote for one, the franchise was not extended until Jackson. Of course women couldn't vote. The sole source of income was from tariffs etc.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
in that clip obama references slavery.. i wonder though, he is talking about the 'original' constitution, so what about today, in which it has many amendments updated on it? does he aggree with those?

the reason i am suspicious of his accussation, and everyone else also i'm sure, is because he is a suspicious character. what with his past friends and co-workers, how he has spent tax dollars promoting socialist friend's elections overseas, how he refused to wear an american flag pin at first, and wouldn't sing our anthem....

i could go on, it's no wonder he's practically famous here at ats, a CONSPIRACY theory web site,

so you can understand why i want to know EXACTLY what he is talking about, not that i ASSUME he is refering to something good and wanting to make it bad, or that he'll get into office and make it bad... but that it is a legit thing to wonder given his past, and current sorounding and self.




posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by indigothefish
 


Obama is a constituitional scholar and taught the subject as well... he knows far more about it than say bush minor does and probably more than McCain does as well.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


And that is why you will never be a leader. It was beautifully crafted, no doubt, but even that document's contemporaries were weary of many of its clauses. They wrote the whole in quite a rush, in fact. You can't tell, however, because people's standards of writing today are far below that which was present in the late 1700's. You don't criticize someone for criticizing a document, which the Founding Fathers themselves would have hoped be criticized much more than it already is.

And anyway, that interview is entirely out of context of your thread. You should be ashamed, spreading guilt so liberally. The Constitution didn't take into account the freedom of slaves because at the time it was a socially acceptable practice. And John Adams was the first to understand that, but it was never publicized for many good reasons. It was a frivolous campaign at that day and age and they collectively decided that it would be up to future generations to correct that flaw. They knew exactly what they wrote, and they had great foresight. It was just that they simply preoccupied with extensive military provisions on the eve of full-scale war with the British. There were some things that they could have touched upon but obviously did not have enough time to afford such attention.

And this is where gun laws come in. The ownership of a gun was never intended to be a means for the citizenry to have some natural defense against their government in times that it become too corrupt. That was never the purpose. The process of Democracy, so clearly established in the Constitution, was itself the only means for which a revolting society could usurp the powers of malignant governance. Bloodshed should never be necessary.

If a revolution were at all ever to occur, it would only be warranted because there would so much support for it. I'd suspect more than two-thirds of the entire country would support such a thing if it were ever to be substantial. We would then not require any physical force whatsoever. In fact, citizens with guns parading wherever they go now have the power to affect any change they wish, at their own whims and not those of any purposeful revolution. They would act as a single violent mob, and their actions would be easily provoked; they would stir an undesirable dissent, coolly fostered by such ease of access to firearms.

Now it was to the greatest scrutiny that the Second Amendment was published. They well knew that arming their citizenry with guns and giving them the right to bear them at all times was the greatest threat to the security of this Republican governmental system and newly established Democracy. In fact, the Second amendment was barely passed and most of the government was opposed to it at its inception because of these dangers. But it was a necessary provision in the face of what seemed to be an inevitable civil war.

In a realistic world pragmatism obscures the very essence of our most sacred beliefs.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by cognoscente]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by cognoscente
 


Thank you so much for taking the time to describe many of the background elements behind the Constitution and it's amendments.

It reminds me of something I heard said once before "If you don't know the history of the author you don't know what you are reading".

Thanks again for bringing to light many of the environmental elements surrounding the formation of the Constitution and it's amendments.





top topics
 
1

log in

join