Obama -vs- The Constitution

Dostoevsky said,

"Without God all things are permissible."

Jean Paul Sartre declared that statement to be the starting point of Existentialist Philosophy. Those who love American democracy should ponder this starting point of political philosophy:

Without The Constitution all things are permissible.

Conservatives have unearthed and exposed a 2001 radio interview where Obama once again speaks favorably of redistribution of wealth. That dog won't hunt, even with lipstick. Voters are mad at Bush and determined to teach us all a lesson. Sad but true.

What I think is of greater concern is Mr. Obama's cavalier disregard for our constitution and the founders' original intent of those sacred words. Obama laments the fact that the Supreme Court

"didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed on it by the Founding Fathers."

He still concluded, however, that he could indeed come up with a theoretical justification for redistribution of wealth through court mandate. This is scary.

The Constitution is literally all that stands between We The People and tyranny. Twist this document like a pretzel, reshape it like play-doh, and anything is possible: Taking guns away in the name of public safety, shutting up those who criticize government officials, eradication of property rights to benefit the poor...

Think I'm exaggerating? The erosion has already begun: Roe v. Wade established a constitutional right where previously there was none. Even honest pro-choice liberals will concede the case was poorly decided. The campaign finance law fathered by Senator McCain, the Kelo case that ruled government could seize private property for commercial purposes... All cracks in the foundation just waiting for a messiah with a jackhammer.

Bill Whittle at NRO has written an excellent piece on this. Here are some quotes he took from the interview:

And uh, to that extent, 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 by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s 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, 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.

You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.

So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.

This is a constitutional lawyer who has no respect for the document and the ideas it embodies. This is a man who sees constitutional law as an intellectual rubiks cube: twist it the right way and you can make it say whatever you want it to say, original intent of the Founding Fathers be damned.

Without God all things are permissible

Without The Constitution all things are permissible.