Comments on: (Audio) Obama: Constitution Reflects Fundamental Flaw of This Country that Continues to This Day http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/10/27/audio-obama-constitution-reflects-fundamental-flaw-of-this-country-that-continues-to-this-day/ Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:54:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Obama Worship Hour « The Early Today http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/10/27/audio-obama-constitution-reflects-fundamental-flaw-of-this-country-that-continues-to-this-day/comment-page-1/#comment-104779 Obama Worship Hour « The Early Today Sun, 02 Nov 2008 07:28:00 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=15443#comment-104779 [...] that the government’s biggest commitment was to stay out of our way. However, since Obama feels the Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day,” it’s [...] [...] that the government’s biggest commitment was to stay out of our way. However, since Obama feels the Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day,” it’s [...]

]]> By: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Barack Obama Says The Constitution Is Flawed, And He’s Right http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/10/27/audio-obama-constitution-reflects-fundamental-flaw-of-this-country-that-continues-to-this-day/comment-page-1/#comment-102711 Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Barack Obama Says The Constitution Is Flawed, And He’s Right Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:31:21 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=15443#comment-102711 [...] In what seems to be a follow-up to yesterday’s kerfuffle about Barack Obama’s comments about the Warren Court and redistribution of wealth, there’s now an audio clip of him from the same radio program discussing what he called a “fundamental flaw” in the Constitution: [...] [...] In what seems to be a follow-up to yesterday’s kerfuffle about Barack Obama’s comments about the Warren Court and redistribution of wealth, there’s now an audio clip of him from the same radio program discussing what he called a “fundamental flaw” in the Constitution: [...]

]]> By: The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » Barack Obama Says The Constitution Is Flawed, And He’s Right http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/10/27/audio-obama-constitution-reflects-fundamental-flaw-of-this-country-that-continues-to-this-day/comment-page-1/#comment-102709 The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » Barack Obama Says The Constitution Is Flawed, And He’s Right Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:31:02 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=15443#comment-102709 [...] In what seems to be a follow-up to yesterday’s kerfuffle about Barack Obama’s comments about the Warren Court and redistribution of wealth, there’s now an audio clip of him from the same radio program discussing what he called a “fundamental flaw” in the Constitution: [...] [...] In what seems to be a follow-up to yesterday’s kerfuffle about Barack Obama’s comments about the Warren Court and redistribution of wealth, there’s now an audio clip of him from the same radio program discussing what he called a “fundamental flaw” in the Constitution: [...]

]]> By: Charles http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/10/27/audio-obama-constitution-reflects-fundamental-flaw-of-this-country-that-continues-to-this-day/comment-page-1/#comment-102676 Charles Tue, 28 Oct 2008 03:42:23 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=15443#comment-102676 Great, thanks for following up on the original post! After listening to the 11 minute clip a few times over, I however get the impression that Obama thinks the flaw in the Constitution was that the writers took a pure cost/benefit approach to issues, instead of one that also might also be explicit about underlying moral motivations. In the excerpted response, Obama posits this approach to issues (cost/benefit) is how slavery (or a direction towards less slavery) was dealt with. He gives a second example -- that of environmentalism -- as an issue that politicians and judges have taken a cost/benefit approach, e.g. weighing the negative consequences of introducing some chemical into the environment with benefit of using that chemical (fertilizers are notable in this class of chemicals). That he gives this second example in spite of the question asked being directly about slavery and race in early America suggests to me his answer was rooted in a more general principle -- his perceived deficiency in a pure cost/benefit approach to doing politics (as opposed to one that involves morals, too). Regardless of which morals one thinks are important for Americans to embrace, I do think he has a point -- if we are to be unified by some set of principles, somewhere morals substantiate those principles, and I think it's important to be open an honest about which morals one subscribes to, and perhaps even good if we are more explicit about them in the policies made (i.e. not try to hide the underlying morals of judicial decisions, as Obama includes in a response to an earlier question in the interview). In the context of his second example -- that of environmentalism -- I suppose morals along the lines of whether we should view the environment only as a tool for material human ends (as a resource) or have some other belief about the environment (e.g. whether we should protect a species out of personal belief, like the Bald Eagle for the sake of symbolism) would be competing approaches to how politics should approach treatment of the environment. So to cap, I don't think he's calling for a change of the Constitution, but instead a call for being more explicit in future political/judicial decisions about the roots for making those decisions, particularly to be prepared to accept whether we want to take a pure cost/benefit approach to an issue or one that is explicitly based on morals. Interesting topic indeed! When I get some free time I'll dig some more into the historical context, and try to read more about how Obama's responses here tie into his philosophy of law and approach to politics. Cheers! Great, thanks for following up on the original post! After listening to the 11 minute clip a few times over, I however get the impression that Obama thinks the flaw in the Constitution was that the writers took a pure cost/benefit approach to issues, instead of one that also might also be explicit about underlying moral motivations. In the excerpted response, Obama posits this approach to issues (cost/benefit) is how slavery (or a direction towards less slavery) was dealt with. He gives a second example — that of environmentalism — as an issue that politicians and judges have taken a cost/benefit approach, e.g. weighing the negative consequences of introducing some chemical into the environment with benefit of using that chemical (fertilizers are notable in this class of chemicals). That he gives this second example in spite of the question asked being directly about slavery and race in early America suggests to me his answer was rooted in a more general principle — his perceived deficiency in a pure cost/benefit approach to doing politics (as opposed to one that involves morals, too). Regardless of which morals one thinks are important for Americans to embrace, I do think he has a point — if we are to be unified by some set of principles, somewhere morals substantiate those principles, and I think it’s important to be open an honest about which morals one subscribes to, and perhaps even good if we are more explicit about them in the policies made (i.e. not try to hide the underlying morals of judicial decisions, as Obama includes in a response to an earlier question in the interview). In the context of his second example — that of environmentalism — I suppose morals along the lines of whether we should view the environment only as a tool for material human ends (as a resource) or have some other belief about the environment (e.g. whether we should protect a species out of personal belief, like the Bald Eagle for the sake of symbolism) would be competing approaches to how politics should approach treatment of the environment. So to cap, I don’t think he’s calling for a change of the Constitution, but instead a call for being more explicit in future political/judicial decisions about the roots for making those decisions, particularly to be prepared to accept whether we want to take a pure cost/benefit approach to an issue or one that is explicitly based on morals. Interesting topic indeed! When I get some free time I’ll dig some more into the historical context, and try to read more about how Obama’s responses here tie into his philosophy of law and approach to politics. Cheers!

]]> By: Jay http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/10/27/audio-obama-constitution-reflects-fundamental-flaw-of-this-country-that-continues-to-this-day/comment-page-1/#comment-102667 Jay Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:56:24 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=15443#comment-102667 Here is a link for <a href="http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=372" rel="nofollow">pretext and context.</a> By the way, actually listen to the clip again and he says exactly what I said in the title. Of course, the text below it are my own thoughts. Here is a link for pretext and context.

By the way, actually listen to the clip again and he says exactly what I said in the title. Of course, the text below it are my own thoughts.

]]> By: Jay http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/10/27/audio-obama-constitution-reflects-fundamental-flaw-of-this-country-that-continues-to-this-day/comment-page-1/#comment-102666 Jay Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:52:03 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=15443#comment-102666 You are correct. When listened to in context, one knows he is speaking of the civil rights movement and black liberation through it in pretext. I'll get you link. You are correct. When listened to in context, one knows he is speaking of the civil rights movement and black liberation through it in pretext. I’ll get you link.

]]> By: Charles http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/10/27/audio-obama-constitution-reflects-fundamental-flaw-of-this-country-that-continues-to-this-day/comment-page-1/#comment-102659 Charles Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:00:11 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=15443#comment-102659 Thanks for posting, but I don't hear anywhere in the posted video which part of the constitution he thinks was blindsighted, no less any part in which he refers to race explicitly, nor that he even wants to change the Constitution. In other words, I didn't hear him mention anything in the sound byte provided that is alluded to in-text. I am interested in hearing this byte in-context, however. Could the full dialogue/monologue/speech/etc. be posted, or the source thereof? Thanks! Thanks for posting, but I don’t hear anywhere in the posted video which part of the constitution he thinks was blindsighted, no less any part in which he refers to race explicitly, nor that he even wants to change the Constitution. In other words, I didn’t hear him mention anything in the sound byte provided that is alluded to in-text. I am interested in hearing this byte in-context, however. Could the full dialogue/monologue/speech/etc. be posted, or the source thereof? Thanks!

]]>