This is seriously scary stuff. He really believes in redistributive change and sees the Constitution as a constraint from which we have to be freed.
[G]enerally 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 tendancy 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.
Few people realize, because the MSM has refused to discuss it, just how radical Obama's calls for "fundamental change" are.
Drudge has picked this up and it will get wide distribution, but just in case I am noting it here.
Read Michelle Malkin's transcript and listen to the original here.
Oh, what the heck, here's the interview.
You have been warned.
Ann Althouse writes that this kind of thinking is fairly common among law school faculty and notes that Obama does not in this interview call for abandoning the Constitution -- that he merely is noting its constraints on redistributive programs as currently interpreted by the courts. She also notes that Obama's understanding of the Constitution is riddled with errors.
Read her commentary here.
To which I would respond that Obama's comments must be understood within the context of his other, more recent remarks calling for "fundamental change". He may not have called for radical change in these specific remarks, but he has called for it elsewhere. These remarks merely show what kind of change he envisions.
Bill Whittle says Obama's remarks are not just scary, but shameful. Read it here.