Barack Obama wants to radically reinterpret the Constitution to redistribute wealth.
In a 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview, Obama discussed the best way to bring about a Redistribution of Wealth.
Some excerpts of Barack Obama’s comments (emphasis mine):
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I would be OK.
But the Supreme court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
And to that extent, as radical as I think 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 has been interpreted…that generally the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties says what the states can’t do to you or 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.
And that hasn’t shifted. And one of the I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and the activities on the ground that are able to put together the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
He goes on to explain, in a response to a caller’s question, how redistibution of wealth is better accomplished through the legislative branch than the judicial branch. In Barack’s mind, there is no question that redistribution of wealth is what must be done, even if it means changing or reinterpreting the Constitution! It’s not a question of if it should be done, but rather how best to do it!
The YouTube video is a 4:17 edit of the original 52:59 program found on this page.