Obama Talks About “Fundamental Flaws” of the US Constitution

This is no surprise to anyone who has studied Obama’s record, but there have been two audio clips revealed recently that show Barack Obama’s disdain for the US Constitution. Yet it still amazes me that this candidate for President makes such a blatant attack on our God-inspired Constitution.

Here’s the audio (about 30 seconds):

Here’s the transcript: “the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and uh that the framers uh had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document uh that paved the way for where we are now and to say that uh it also uh reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

And here’s another, more lengthy (about 4 minutes), clip from a 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview with Barack Obama on WBEZ FM. As you listen (or read the transcript) notice how it is not a discussion about whether or not redistribution of wealth (“spreading the wealth around” as Obama calls it) is right or wrong, constitutional or unconstitutional. It is a discussion about the best way to do it.

Here’s the audio:

Here’s the transcript: “But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth uh and sort of more basic issues of political and uh economic justice in this society. And uh As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed uh by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. It says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. Uh and that hasn’t shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that 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 coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive uh change. And, uh, in some ways we still suffer from that.”

Continuing, he states that “Although you can craft theoretical justifications for it (redistribution of wealth) legally…any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing economic change through the courts.”

Sounds like this man is willing to do whatever it takes, through legislative action or through the courts, to bring about his world view…taking from the rich and giving to the poor. But Obama is no Robin Hood, as Jonathan Morris points out on “Robin Hood is a legitimate hero, not because he robbed from the rich and gave to the poor, but rather because he returned to the poor what lawfully belonged to them.” Obama wants to take what lawfully belongs to one person and give it to another. This “spreading the wealth around” that Obama seeks is nothing more than legalized theft and an affront to the Constitution.

After what he has said about the Constitution, how can Obama honestly take the oath of office which says, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.