Go to Cutting Obama's Deficit of Truth
- Add a comment
- Go to Is the Supreme Court Supposed to Break Free From the Constitution?
Context
According to
Slate Magazine, the comment by Obama was in the context of a legal debate, and Obama's position was that the courts could have and perhaps should have gone further in eliminating the "separate but equal" doctrine, which was shot down in
Brown v Board of Education, the important point being that the courts remained silent on funding for schools being unequal when based on such variables as property taxes. That debate has gone on in public and court in Ohio for the last twelve years or more, with court decisions going both ways. The government does decide how money will be spent on education, and the Ohio Supreme Court has said several times that such money should be evenly spent, requiring redistribution of wealth from rich school districts to poor ones. Obama was lamenting the fact that the U. S. Supreme Court, when deciding
Brown and related cases, didn't include such a requirement.
posted by
mousehop
on October 29, 2008 at 10:20 AM
| link to this | reply
You may read an article in today's Wall Street Journal on what Presidents have thought of the Constitution. Then you my reconstitute your expose'.
posted by
EX_TURPI
on October 29, 2008 at 6:33 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: I wish you'd stop listening to and parroting others' ideas.
" . . . he is making statements that Constitutional experts have made for decades."
REALLY? Share your wisdom here. Give us the names of Constitutional scholars who have said that:
The Supreme Court should have "ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society”;
The Supreme Court should "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution”; or,
The Constitution "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.”especially saying such from the position that it should give more power to the Federal government.
posted by
WriterofLight
on October 28, 2008 at 7:49 PM
| link to this | reply
I wish you'd stop listening to and parroting others' ideas.
I read the transcript and listened to the interview.
He doesn't state or infer that the Consitution is to be ignored (like Herr Bush and his cronies) -- he is making statements that Constitutional experts have made for decades.
This gets tiring.
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 28, 2008 at 9:57 AM
| link to this | reply