Obama Speaks Of “Imperfect” Constitution

Saw this at Pat Dollard’s:

This is from his speech in Philadelphia this morning. Where better to announce the founding of a new nation shaped in his image? And where else, more mocking, more audacious? And where else, better to fool people, as a patriot?

Did you catch it?

“It was these ideals that led us to declare independence, and craft our constitution, producing documents that were imperfect but had within them, like our nation itself, the capacity to be made more perfect.

We are here today not simply to pay tribute to our first patriots but to take up the work that they began.

And yet while our problems may be new, what is required to overcome them is not. What is required is the same perseverance and idealism that our founders displayed. What is required is a new declaration of independence not just in our nation, but in our own lives..independence from ideology…

A new Declaration of Independence?! No thanks…let’s keep the old one, please. Independence from ideology? What. the. hell? Just in time for the Obamanation?

Dollard says:

Later in another city, he made reference to the need for our Constitution to be rewritten as “more perfect”.

Who gets to define that? And why is that definition  better than the definition left us by the Founding Fathers?

If  I didn’t know any better, I would just chalk this up to a bunch of high minded, idealistic gobbledygook. But, I do know better. Obama has a history of trashing the Constitution. He’s serious when suggests that the Constitution needs to be rewritten. He wants to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution”, as he clearly stated in this interview from  2001.

Remember the “October Surprise” the MSM ignored ?

Bill Whittle weighed in at the time at NRO:

This redistribution of wealth, he states, “essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.” It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief executive.

Now that’s just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a big deal to may voters. So I would appeal to any American who claims to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers… I will not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear: “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 [the] 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.

The United States of America — five percent of the world’s population — leads the world economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally — and by a spectacular margin. Any one of these achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical precedent. That we have achieved so much in so many areas is due — due entirely — to the structure of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.

Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw.

Whittle lamented:

That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful enough.

Well it’s neither here nor there, now, I guess. Elections have consequences.

Oh yeah… in other news:

As Inauguration Day approaches and Barack Obama prepares to assume his first term as president, some in Congress are hoping to make it possible for the Democrat to not only seek a second term in office, but a third and fourth as well.

The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary is considering a bill that would repeal the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office.

Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., earlier this month introduced the bill, H. J. Res. 5, which, according to the bill’s language, proposes “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”

STILL MORE bad news for the Constitution:

WND reported back in December:

A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which “today’s corrupt politicians and judges” could formally change the U.S. Constitution’s “‘problematic’ provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society.”

“Don’t for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn’t revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a ‘collective’ right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights,” said the warning from the American Policy Center.

“Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the ‘right’ to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more,” the group said.

The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens

of current events.

Get ready for it.