In a recently unearthed 2001 interview with Chicago Public Radio, Obama discussed the Supreme Court's decisions during the Civil Rights era and lamented that the court only granted black Americans the same rights as white Americans. It was a tragedy, he said, that it did not grant the government the power to reorder society more fundamentally.

"But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth," he complained. "And sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, I think, as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter 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 the state government must do on your behalf".

With a man who believes this,it is all down hill for the citizens of the U.S., until we can rid ourselves of him and those who think like him at the ballot box!

For those who doubt what I just posted. You can listen to the tape of Obama saying what I quoted at

Obama 2001: Scrap the Constitution, spread the wealth @American Thinker blog.

All I can say is "Wow."

Dr. Sowell,

Thank you for your thoughtfulness and clear presentation. Those of us who read everything you write are so much the better for it.

The simple fact that the U. S. Constitution puts limits on the power(s) of the Federal government fails to be absorbed by those politicians that follow the Wilson, FDR and Obama model(s).

The purpose of the U. S. Government is: 1) to insure the protection of the citizens of this country; 2)to write laws that are equitable and fair to ALL citizens; and, 3) to make certain that the laws enacted by the states follow the same premise as #2. Essentially, that is all the constitution represents. There is nothing in the constitution that permits the massive expenditures for social problems, income redistribution, wealth equalization, etc.

Thank you, once again. Keep up the thought provoking work.

Duke

Amen. Amen. Amen. Destruction of the Constitution IS the destruction of America. "The agenda then, as now, has been for our betters to decide among themselves which Constitutional safeguards against arbitrary government power should be disregarded, in the name of meeting "the needs of the times"-- as they choose to define those needs." I know NO better definition of SLAVERY. Too bad the vast majority of American voters either don't understand or don't care. They will. After it is no doubt too late to avoid yet another civil war.

When Obama was running for President, we warned people that he was a radical who considered himself a citizen of the world, rather than an American. We warned of his radical associations, his radical statements, his radical voting record, and his rather bizarre rise to power. We were called all sorts of names, not the least of which was "racist," and we were dismissed out of hand by the public at large.

President Obama turns out to be 100 times worse than we feared. And now that Americans have seen the policies this radical is pushing, it's only the lapdog media and the faithful Left who still dismiss our warnings. The rest of America are at Amazon.com buying books like "The 5000 Year Leap" and Dr. Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" in order to educate themselves on exactly what's going on.

And they do not like what they see.

The question now is, has it gone too far? Can we even still use the system erected by the Constitution to pull this country back from the abyss of Socialism and restore the Republic to its intended Free-market glory? We will soon find out.

What troubles me is what might happen if it turns out that it's already too late. Americans will not hold still for Socialism the way the royalist-minded Europeans are wont to do. But if we cannot vote the Socialists out anymore, the options seem pretty limited. In fact, it would seem only option remains at that point.

Those of us who make it our business to monitor what people are talking about have noticed the word "secession" is now cropping up more and more. The Left may finally get its wish, if not in the way it always wanted.

An email essay has been circulating for some time offering Progressives a deal. You take your Socialism and your welfare state and your open borders and you can keep them. You can have them in California and the Northeast. You can call it whatever you want. We'll take everything else and we'll call it America. We'll run America according to the laws of the Constitution and the principles of free-market economics. In ten years, we'll see which country prospers -- and which one is deep in debt.

Maybe that's the way it needs to be.

MichaelSSECL Your proposal to the progressives has already been done. It's called Blue and Red states. But it's already played out. And now Blue states are bankrupt and coming to the Federal government to bail them out at Red states' and every tax-payers expense. And when the communist federal government goes bankrupt, who do you think they'll turn to? Their UN, of course. They've just turned back the clock to 1775 and replaced the Union Jack with that piece of blue and white toilet paper that now waves over New York and DC. I say we turn the clock forward to 1776. DON'T TREAD ON ME.

I'm with Michael on this one. Obama has severly divided this country to the point that seccession by the several states may be the only answer. I think it is obvious to all which "America" will be successful.

Thank you!

Another for Michael. I do not believe we have gone too far, as we see even in CA people are waking up. If we have, the Constitution gives We The People the right to disolve the government.

I always enjoy your writing. The paper in Virginia Beach Va, the Virginia Pilot used to have your collum but I haven't seen it in a long time. What happened

Dr. Sowell: This is very well written. You're quickly becoming my favorite author.

Secession? You have got to be kidding? Virtually every single state has freely and happily ceded their Constitutionally vested powers to the Federal government for over 100 years. States rights and the power of secession was intended as a threat and a clear option to throw off the yoke of an oppressive government. The Civil War, the 17th amendment, the Commerce Clause, acquiescence in the name of government handouts have all served to emasculate the intended last gasp effort for a fed up populace who wished to shed the chains of an out of touch tyrannical authority. Sorry too late for that.

Michael SSEC: "You take your Socialism and your welfare state ... You can have them in California ...".

Do not attempt to preempt the rights of straight thinking Californians to resist the liberal-progressive-Marxist impetus in this Country by relinquishing this State to their radical agenda! I can't speak for the Northeast, but there are many of us here in California just as dedicated to the imperatives outlined in the Constitution as you are. We're not about to capitulate and endorse an agenda such as the one that seems to appeal to you -NEVER! Respectfully, we'll keep our "pound of flesh" and continue to fight. Capitulate somewhere else.

As every day brings a new outrage by Obozo and his boys, I am growing more and more cynical. No one can do anything or think anything about last week's problems because there have been half a dozen more since then to top them. There seems to be a lot of confidence in these pages that the voters will wake up this November and begin taking back the country, but I'm not convinced it will happen. I'm holding my breath until then, but if the election goes the wrong way due to continued apathy and lack of voter attention, the country will be irretrievably lost.

I have never (until now) found a statement by you that I disagree with, but I do disagree with your statement "The first open attack on the Constitution by a President of the United States was made by our only president with a Ph.D., Woodrow Wilson".

I would submit that that dubious honor would be placed on the head of Abraham Lincoln just before the time that little Woodrow was born. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus might qualify as the first egregious example of running roughshod over the Constitution. It is my understanding that only congress can temporary suspend habeas corpus, and that the executive branch can not do this (legally).

The Patriot Post has an excellent paper on this titled "The Lincoln Legacy - Revisited". http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2006/02/17/the-lincoln-legacy-revisited/

Clarence De Barrows said; "Do not attempt to preempt the rights of straight thinking Californians to resist the liberal-progressive-Marxist impetus in this Country by relinquishing this State to their radical agenda!"

Sorry Clarence, it's a little late for such sentiment. You guys in Californication have done such a great job keeping socialism at bay. Your 100 miles behind enemy lines, and you don't even know it.

JAC: There is little chance that the election in 2010 will displace a significant number of communists from power. They're too entrenched. And the election in 2012 is already lost as far as the restoration of constitutional government goes; there won't be a sovereign America left by then. The American public will allow the thugs to do whatever they want. Until it doesn't. Don't hold your breath unless you're planning on dying.

Dr. Sowell is to be admired and listened to even though the true greatness of America is past. Many of the reasons leading to the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution were taken from the theological writings of Samuel Rutherford and John Knox. Our founders, bless their hearts, wisely knew government was ordained by the Almighty to administer His law for the people, but when those rulers and laws became tyrannical then mankind has a God-given right to disobey them, even fight against them. Have we, as a nation, reached the bottom line as our founders did in 1775 and declare ourselves no longer beholding to a leader and laws that defy the will of God and the people?

States' rights, states' rights, states' ! ! ! !!

DOes anyone out there understand this concept?

Thanks,

rs

Fighting tyrany...

Go find Carlos Castaneda's account of Don Juan's discourse on defeating the tyrant (in all it's many forms.

We need to know how, what measures to take to shake those in power who would take it all and still want more.

I am, as usual, in agreement with MichaelSSEC. However, I don't think dividing the country is the answer. I think we may need a 3rd American Revolution. Oh, and Clarence De Barrows: As long as brain-dead twerps like Pelosi and Boxer keep getting sent to Washington on California's behalf, you are out of the fight.

Hemmett: Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. If some improvement doesn't start with this year's election, 2012 won't matter, because it will be too late by then. If Obozo and his community organizers are re-elected to another term in 2012, the country will never survive another four years. I should have said I'm not holding my breath in my last post, but now that I think about it, what does it matter?

I am not too offended that the political class think themselves wiser and more noble than the masses. It may or may not be true but is, at least, possible. What offends me is that the arrogant (intentionally left blank)s have the hubris to consider themselves wiser and more noble than the Founding Fathers who, after putting their lives (not sacred,) their fortunes (again, not sacred,) and their sacred honor (these people would never consider lying about serving in the war or anything else)on the line to free this Nation from oppression, considered all the known models of government in recorded history before settling on our Constitutional Republic. The limitations they placed on the powers of government are not there by accident or coincidence. They are there to guarantee that the government cannot choose to transform our Republic into something more to the liking of those in power (as the Marxists are now trying to do.) The Constitution is the supreme law of this land, and should remain so. That is the only protection (short of armed insurrection) we have against usurpation by unscrupulous, self-serving politicians.

Two quick points.

I have currently been re-reading the Federalist Papers and have discovered that I didn't really READ it the first time.

Secondly, the more I read the less I am inclined to believe that succession is the best course for the USA. The authors warned us in no uncertain terms what would happen if we were to dissolve into various states or confederacies.

Could a better republic emerge should such a choice be made, perhaps. But it should be very, very carefully considered, and all obstacles be removed before such a venture.

When a man says that the constitution is "fundamentally flawed" he can only mean one thing: government ought not to be governed but free to govern the people as they see fit without restraint. Tyranny, in other words. When he said that "unfortunately" [!} the Court is "not the best way to massively redistribute wealth" we knew, or should have known, that he believed property is theft except when he steals it in the name of those who he decides deserves it.

But the horrible truth is that many want to be slaves and will not wake up. Anything negative about the dear leader is seen merely as the work of devils, of propagandists, and I fear many will not be woken up by anything at all, so deeply are their identities bound to the "historical moment" they believe this presidency represents.

I saw a documentary on Hitler and Alber Speer last night done by art critic Robert Hughes. In one segment an elderly woman denied knowing who had hewed the stones for all that crushing Nazi architecture and expressed her horror that it was slaves who were murdered to preserve the purity of the Aryan race. But when she recalled how, as a girl of 15 she'd audaciously jumped onto the running board of the Fuhrer's car to shake his hand her eyes lit up and she was a girl again, more fully alive than she had ever been. It is to this filigree of vain fantasy that Obots are betrothed. I'm pessimistic that they can be woken: they want only death to interrupt that dream.

Because our government is by, for and of the people, it cannot be taken away from us; it can only be given away by us. The only surprise I have had from Obama was his election. I never had any doubt about who or what he was. Once the American people were stupid enough to elect him there was no doubt about what he would do and no surprise when he did it.

He is now the elected leader and it is time for the people to stop fighting him and get under him as he wants us to.

When his wife expressed her hatred of America until he was elected and then she referred to how they would rule the country did you think they were joking?

Obama didn't gain office by putting a gun to people's heads. He was elected. Our politicians have for decades held power because they constantly promise to steal from everyone else and give it to us and we think that is good. One of the more accurate political commentaries ever made was that you may not get the government you want, but you will usually get the government you deserve.

Many people complain that special interests are destroying our country. They are correct. This country is made up of over 300,000,000 special interests. This great social experiment we call democracy is failing because the people are incapable of subjugating individual desires and working and voting for the greater good.

Our country is being lost by 300,000,000 people each giving away little bits of everyone else's liberty. In a democracy, that which you take from your neighbor you also take from yourself.

When one state is willing to let the federal government force another state to pay for its roads it also grants the federal government power to make it pay for the other state's roads. Both states lose the right to control their money and their roads.

Imagine a country in which people fight for their right to smoke, pay significant amounts of money for cigarettes to smoke and then when they die of cancer due to their actions the courts reward their families with millions of dollars. How stupid is that? Reward stupid behavior. Of course, the amount of money paid to smoking 'victims' is minuscule compared to the amount taken by government when it 'punishes' the wicked tobacco companies, money that it uses to increase its power over the population.

That is what government does with money. In fact that is pretty much all that government does with money. Government strives to increase its power. Our form of government was designed by the founders to give the people the right to limit and control government's ability to increase its power over the people. This was our birthright and we have given it away because we have, all 300,000,000 of us, seen government as a way we could force everyone else do what we want.

The pity is that it would have worked if 300,000,000 of us had each asked what we could do that would benefit the other 300,000,000 instead of what we could make the other 300,000,000 do to benefit us.

Obama is not what is wrong with America and he is not the cause of what is wrong with America. He is the result of what is wrong with America.

J. Longridge: A brilliant post! In Canada the federal and provincial governments "share" power (trans: evade responsibility) over all sorts of things including health care. That way they can pat themselves on the back for accidental successes and point fingers for the inevitable failures. Since none take full responsibility, none is motivated to make the programs work (in Canada the default power is to the feds, opposite of the US Constitution but even there the provinces have sold their jurisdiction in the minuscule number of areas that are exclusively theirs and for the same reason you cite: bribery). Adam Smith foresaw this. He said Democracy would last as long as it took people to realize they can vote themselves a share of other people's money.