By Bob Ward - Editor,Texas Daily
BREAKING FREE FROM THE CONSTITUTION
Nov. 14, 2008 - There are any number of things to be concerned about in a
Barack Obama, administration but among the most serious is his attitude toward
the judicial branch.
In a 2001 interview on National Public Radio, Obama discussed the Supreme
Court’s role in the civil rights movement. While the court affirmed the basic civil
rights of blacks, he recalled, it “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of
wealth.” The reason the court failed to redistribute wealth, according to Obama
was that, “It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by
the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”
While most Americans would consider it appropriate for a court to adhere to the
Constitution, Obama sees it otherwise. The Constitution, he said, “reflected an
enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day.”
Barack Obama, administration but among the most serious is his attitude toward
the judicial branch.
In a 2001 interview on National Public Radio, Obama discussed the Supreme
Court’s role in the civil rights movement. While the court affirmed the basic civil
rights of blacks, he recalled, it “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of
wealth.” The reason the court failed to redistribute wealth, according to Obama
was that, “It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by
the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”
While most Americans would consider it appropriate for a court to adhere to the
Constitution, Obama sees it otherwise. The Constitution, he said, “reflected an
enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day.”
OBAMA
And that blind spot, he continued constitutes “the fundamental flaw of this country.”
We are forced to conclude that during the Obama administration, our judges – at all levels from District Court
to the U.S. Supreme Court – will be appointed by someone who believes it is their duty to “break free” from a
flawed constitution.
Obama plainly believes courts should disregard the Constitution in order to redistribute wealth, it is unclear in
what other areas he thinks the Constitution should be overruled. There is strong sentiment among Democratic
leaders in the Congress to re-establish the “fairness doctrine” in broadcasting.
After the old fairness doctrine imposed in 1949 was abolished under Ronald
Reagan in 1987 we saw the rise of talk radio. It is dominated by conservatives
and has been a raspberry seed in the molar of liberals. There have been many
attempts by liberals to emulate the success of conservative talk radio and they
have all been dismal failures.
Under the fairness doctrine a radio station that aired Rush Limbaugh would be compelled to devote three
hours to liberal talk that nobody would listen to. Stations would respond by changing their formats to less
controversial programming.
The legal basis for this intrusion by government is the fiction that the “airwaves” belong to the public and the
statutory requirement that stations licensed by the Federal Communication Commission operate “in the public
interest.” These condition do not apply to non-broadcast media which are protected from government
interference by the first Amendment to the Constitution.
However, Obama believes the Constitution is flawed and courts should “break free” from it. It is not
unreasonable to expect the Federal government, under Obama, to attempt to control other media. Most
vulnerable is the Internet with its bloggers who operate without the editorial “gatekeepers” that keep the
mainstream media in line and usually without the discipline of the marketplace as well.
And if the mainstream mediaalso become victims of Obama’s judicial philosophy, they have only themselves to
blame. They gave this guy a pass overall, and specifically, this interview with National Public Radio should
have had widespread coverage early in the campaign instead of turning up on a few conservatives venues just
days before the election.
Churches are another area where the Constitution is on shaky ground. There are already constitutionally
suspect limits on what pastors can say or do if they speak for their congregations on public issues while
enjoying a tax exemption. Liberal pressure groups are constantly filing complaints with the IRS in an attempt
to silence conservative clergy. Under an Obama administration, such groups could succeed beyond their
wildest dreams and without the complication of involving the IRS. A pastor who spoke out against
homosexuality, for example, could be charged with a hate crime, as happens in Canada, and the U.S. Justice
Dept. would deal with him.
Creative U.S. attorneys could find new ways to enforce the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law to silence
critics during the critical weeks just before an election. And Federal judges who subscribe to the Obama
view of the Constitution will uphold these prosecutions.
The First Amendment guarantees of free speech and religious freedom are not the only rights that can be
violated once our courts are populated by judges who consider it their duty to “break free” from a flawed
constitution. Life, liberty and certainly property are at risk once Barak Obama begins to appoint judges and
the Democratic controlled Senate starts confirming them.
We are forced to conclude that during the Obama administration, our judges – at all levels from District Court
to the U.S. Supreme Court – will be appointed by someone who believes it is their duty to “break free” from a
flawed constitution.
Obama plainly believes courts should disregard the Constitution in order to redistribute wealth, it is unclear in
what other areas he thinks the Constitution should be overruled. There is strong sentiment among Democratic
leaders in the Congress to re-establish the “fairness doctrine” in broadcasting.
After the old fairness doctrine imposed in 1949 was abolished under Ronald
Reagan in 1987 we saw the rise of talk radio. It is dominated by conservatives
and has been a raspberry seed in the molar of liberals. There have been many
attempts by liberals to emulate the success of conservative talk radio and they
have all been dismal failures.
Under the fairness doctrine a radio station that aired Rush Limbaugh would be compelled to devote three
hours to liberal talk that nobody would listen to. Stations would respond by changing their formats to less
controversial programming.
The legal basis for this intrusion by government is the fiction that the “airwaves” belong to the public and the
statutory requirement that stations licensed by the Federal Communication Commission operate “in the public
interest.” These condition do not apply to non-broadcast media which are protected from government
interference by the first Amendment to the Constitution.
However, Obama believes the Constitution is flawed and courts should “break free” from it. It is not
unreasonable to expect the Federal government, under Obama, to attempt to control other media. Most
vulnerable is the Internet with its bloggers who operate without the editorial “gatekeepers” that keep the
mainstream media in line and usually without the discipline of the marketplace as well.
And if the mainstream mediaalso become victims of Obama’s judicial philosophy, they have only themselves to
blame. They gave this guy a pass overall, and specifically, this interview with National Public Radio should
have had widespread coverage early in the campaign instead of turning up on a few conservatives venues just
days before the election.
Churches are another area where the Constitution is on shaky ground. There are already constitutionally
suspect limits on what pastors can say or do if they speak for their congregations on public issues while
enjoying a tax exemption. Liberal pressure groups are constantly filing complaints with the IRS in an attempt
to silence conservative clergy. Under an Obama administration, such groups could succeed beyond their
wildest dreams and without the complication of involving the IRS. A pastor who spoke out against
homosexuality, for example, could be charged with a hate crime, as happens in Canada, and the U.S. Justice
Dept. would deal with him.
Creative U.S. attorneys could find new ways to enforce the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law to silence
critics during the critical weeks just before an election. And Federal judges who subscribe to the Obama
view of the Constitution will uphold these prosecutions.
The First Amendment guarantees of free speech and religious freedom are not the only rights that can be
violated once our courts are populated by judges who consider it their duty to “break free” from a flawed
constitution. Life, liberty and certainly property are at risk once Barak Obama begins to appoint judges and
the Democratic controlled Senate starts confirming them.
