miami_thomas
VIP Member
- Jan 20, 2011
- 1,019
- 86
- 83
Here is the story regarding his executive order granting himself the power.
Did Obama sign a martial law executive order? — RT
I fear that Obama and the progressive movement could use Martial Law powers to try and circumvent the constitution in order to bring about “The Transformation of America”. Obama has mentioned on many occasions of his displeasure with the constitution and the limits it places on change. He has also complained regularly that congress has been preventing him from getting done what he needs to get done. He has already started bypassing congress on things such as immigration. Here is a quote from Obama in an interview stating he doesn’t believe that he can bring about redistributive change the way things are. If that is true, then how would he plan on making those changes?.
“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 dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. 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 its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that….I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.”
Quote from public radio WBEZ-FM in 2001
Did Obama sign a martial law executive order? — RT
I fear that Obama and the progressive movement could use Martial Law powers to try and circumvent the constitution in order to bring about “The Transformation of America”. Obama has mentioned on many occasions of his displeasure with the constitution and the limits it places on change. He has also complained regularly that congress has been preventing him from getting done what he needs to get done. He has already started bypassing congress on things such as immigration. Here is a quote from Obama in an interview stating he doesn’t believe that he can bring about redistributive change the way things are. If that is true, then how would he plan on making those changes?.
“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 dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. 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 its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that….I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.”
Quote from public radio WBEZ-FM in 2001
Last edited:
