You did explain, very well I might add, YOUR take on what context he was using. I don't see how this...
So the 13th Amendment is not enough?
I don't care what context you are talking about, redistribution of wealth, in any form, is not the American way. Sadly, it IS the way of Washington DC.
But I will give BO one thing... At least he is actually saying it. He is saying he thinks it is a good thing.
I really, really hope I am wrong... But if this guy wins and tries to seriously do some of this stuff... It will be time to vote from the rooftops.
One, that's a different conversation. Its not the same interview. He's talking about something else, in this case, the history of the Court, and the history of the democratic party. Two, what he's saying . . . and this is really obvious to a lawyer, though perhaps not to others, if you read the entire segment (which that is not), is that the Warren Court was not radical, BECAUSE it stayed within the bounds of the Constitution, which is fine, because that is the "essential" nature of the Constitution. The tradegy of the civil rights movement was that it wasted so much time on the courts, trying to get them to find economic rights in the Constitution, when no such rights exist in the Constitution. Instead of going to the courts, which could not help them, they should have gone to the legistlatures, which could. He's not critizing the Constitution . . .he's stating a fact about it . . . he's critizing the civil rights movement for trying to use the Constitution in a way it is not meant to be used. (I know I explained this in another thread)
As for redistribution of wealth, he does mention it, but he mentions it as soemthing you take to the legistlature, not something you change the Constitution to get. And although we can argue about that, and what he means about "redistributive" I'll point out that EVERY change in tax policy, agency policy, in spending policy, is redistributive. It just depends on who is the beneficary. There are many very serious people, not just wild-eyed liberals, who will argue that policy changes over the last 20 years have been redistributive, in the sense that that wealth has all been pulled up to the rich. Now, I have no dobut that Obama means giving to the poor, but that doesn't necessiarly mean taking your money and giving it to welfare recipients to spend on crack. It could mean more funding for schools, or tax breaks to help the working poor buy houses or medical care. It could mean, err . . . anything.