The problem is that he does not believe that the founders intent is applicable today and that the Constitution is a "living document" so that we can change its meaning at any time to suit our current situation or agenda. So his re-reading the document will not help.:tear:
You are off topic from the subject of the OP.
This thread has nothing to do with President Bush.
Stop trolling and driving every thread you post in off topic by introducing unrelated stuff about President Bush.
Everyone here already knows that you can't stand him or his Administration.
Let it go.
I didn't bring up the topic.
I was responding to another post.
Bring your issue up with the one who brought it up.
You're off topic.
Quit trolling around looking for Democrats you can criticize without cause.
I am not so sure what people are upset about. The original constitution must have been flawed because the first 10 amendments were added very quickly. This indicates flaws.
We should thank the Virginia Baptist and other early Baptist for fighting so hard to correct the flaw concerning lace of freedom of religion in the original edition of the Constitution.
Since then the Constitution has been amended. This may indicate that people considered it flawed, or that times had changed and it needed to be updated. It is hard to change, and that is good else who knows what it might look like today.
Is it flawed? Well nothing is perfect. Do I know what the flaws are? No.
By the way on a film clip on BBC last night they showed Obama saying, "I will uphold the Constitution."
The Constitution was written in the 18th century and reflects 18th century thinking, especially the philosophy of the French Enlightenment thinkers and philosophers. Personally I believe that is good. We owe much to the French Enlightenment.
A very readable book to begin with is Durant's volume, The Story of Philosophy: From Plato to Voltaire and the French Enlightenment...
I read the article referenced in the OP and can't decide if the writer is a facist, a dreamer, or just wants attention. Anway, most of what he says he desires is not going to happen under any president.
It is undeniable that racism plays a huge role in American society. Until about 40 years ago there was no doubt that blacks were second class citizens at best. It took until 1865 to even make them citizens.
I have great admiration for the constitution and its writers. I think it is the greatest political document and standard of government ever conceived by man, but it was not perfect. It refused to deal with the slavery issue. It only considered slaves to be 3/5 of a person when it came to a census. That is abominable today, but it reflected to view of society in 1789.
That racial flaw in society undoubtedly lasted well into the 1960s (I would contend well into the 70s) and in the opinion of some still continues today (I think there is some merit in the view as well).
To say he wants to rewrite the constitution based on his statements is wrong at best.
There are probably many people on both sides of the political spectrum that would like to rewrite the Constitution. But it isn't going to happen. Can you imagaine the political infighting that would take place if a Constitutional Convention were called to create a new one?
Can't you just imagine far rightests saying, "Liberal should count as only 2/5st of a vote ... and far leftists saying the same about conservatives? [Yes I am being sarcastic.]
No he does not want to "rewrite" the Constitution. He simply wants to re-interpret its meaning, because He does not believe that the original intent of the founders is applicable today. He believes that the Constitution is a "living document" and its meaning can be changed at any time to fit a given situation or agenda. Therein rests the problem with BHO and his Socialist Agenda.
That is a much fairer assessment, and reflects the general trend since at least the 30s. Are there are strict constructionists left who are in positions of authority?
Every generation re-interpretes the constitution just like every generation re-interprets history. It cannot be avoided. Each generation puts its own stamp, its own shades of meaning on everything that touches their life.
For instance anti-abortionists want the Constitution re-interpreted to say that abortion is illegal.
It seems to me that a strict constitutionalist would say that there is no place the Constitution that mentions abortion ... therefore the courts should play no part in deciding if it is legal or illegal. This is the position that Supreme Court Justice Scalia made in an interview I watched on TV about a year ago.