See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Obama In Portland. A first take. (OBAMA REPEATS HE WILL CLOSE GITMO, RESTORE HABEAS, AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION)
Source:
Ideas With Consequences
URL Source: http://ideaswithconsequenses.wordpr ... bama-in-portland-a-first-take/
Published: May 20, 2008
Author: Michael Beaton
Post Date: 2008-05-21 14:24:20 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 2452
Comments: 182
Obama In Portland. A first take. I saw Barak Obama in Portland on Sunday. I do not normally get caught up in shouting and crowd dynamics. And this event was no exception. But I was moved. Deeply. Quietly. I found myself about 30 yards off the main stage watching, watching closely. And listening closely to what was being said. While Obama spoke the obligatory crowd pleasing lines it was notable to me that he did not seem to be trying to whip up the crowd into emotional frenzy. In fact it seemed the opposite. A couple times the crowd wanted to get into the “Yes we Can” chant. Obama seemed to let it run its course and then proceed w/ his remarks. Not that I have anything against the emotion that people are feeling. I tend to want what is underlying the emotional outbursts. I want there to be substance to support it. In this case I felt it was there. Clinton, and others, have tried to cast Obama as having “just words” “he has only given a good speech”. I now understand better why they need to try and detract from the power of Obama’s oratory. It is not like so much political speech, full of vacuous thought, full of promises and non sequitur thoughts designed to appeal to a predetermined crowd. Obama actually talks in full paragraphs, with thoughts that hold together across the entire speech. It is not simply a collection of applause lines or attack lines. He actually engages the issues we are facing in a way that evinces an understanding of this simple maxim : You cannot solve a problem at the level at which the problem was created. My first take on the speech follows. Basic takeaway : His stump speech is smarter, more intelligent, logically cohesive, as well as inspirational and meaningfully hopeful than the best, thought out positions of the others candidates. Or any politician I am aware of for that matter. Reagan is held out as a “great communicator”. I never have understood this, never really feeling that much of what Reagan communicated was worth hearing. As a communicator I would posit Obama is orders of magnitude better than Reagan. And… he has the added benefit of actually communicating something that calls to our “better selves” while not eviscerating what it means to be an American. It seems that Obama has the power to hold this position of transformation. I have never heard a political candidate make the case that what he is offering is not pre-molded answers but a process by which we may affect change for the better. Now it will be up to the country to decide if we have drunk a full cup of the bitters and ready for such a change. Or if it will take another quaff, and another round of drunken stupor, for the citizenry to get it that the course America has followed for so long, (insert lots of detail here), and that has been especially manifest in the horror that has been this BushCo Administration, is fundamentally flawed and in need of deep systemic change. We have to begin to think again as citizens bound together in some essential way that is deeper than our epicurean pursuits and our silly infatuations with flawed beliefs like “we are number one” or/and “they hate us for our freedoms”. I am hopeful, but cynical. I live a contradiction. I am aware of the basic goodness and desires of people, the American people. I am also aware of the powers and forces and individuals who lie in wait to destroy what would destroy them. And they have their hands on the levers of power, money, communications. It is amazing to me however, that even though that is so, there is still the possibility for hope, and for change - change at a deep structural level. It lets me know that as formidable as the masters of the status quo are there is something that they do not own, that is not fully under control. It is from this, whatever that is, that something deeper, more integral, more essential will, if it will, if it can, emerge. My favorite line in the speech: In these two lines Obama has made the essential case: The constitution is the essense of what makes America America. Without it we become only another failed republic tending toward a new tyranny…. as we are now. And that it will take a change in our mindset in order to affect change. He does not promise it will happen. Only, and this is key, that if we, the citizens of America will embrace the notion of citizen once again, that promise that has been America may once again emerge. Maybe even in a more transcendant incarnation. Maybe we can retreat from empire and become less militaristic and more holistic in our foreign affairs? Maybe we can transcend the essential racism that has been in our deep psyche from the beginning, and has been a profound hinderance to our ability to function at the level of our principles. Maybe we can begin the process of being ruled by something more positive, more true, more substantial than fears. Fears stoked by demogauges who know better, and use the knowledge for their own purposes. Maybe we can recover from this financial precipice we find ourselves perched on. But it will take a systemic transformation akin, though different, to the social contracts that came out of the Great Depression. Maybe we can do it before we immerse ourselves in another , more horrible global Great Depression? Or maybe not. But these are the propositions that are before us now. What is certain is that to continue the path currently charted will be to proceed, pell mell, to a certain destruction. It is long past the time for vacuous promises that hardly last longer than the reverberation of the sounds of the words with which they are spoken. It is time for a commitment to a thinking that is different. A thinking that is motivated for a real comprehension of what it is we face, and propelled by a profound and essential desire to live true to “the angles of our better nature.” I know this post needs a good editing, and I will do that in subsequent posts. For now this is meant only as first thoughts on a moment that, to me, was seminal, and which seems to presage what seems to me to be a major choice point that we, as citizens of this country, have now come to. What has happened, even over the last 8 years, has happened. Now what? There is a choice that must be made. And will be made one way or another. Even trying, again, to not choose, or make a default choice of the known; even trying to hold fast to the well worn creeds of the past - our racism, our unsubstantiated beliefs, our formidible ignorance, our memories of world dominance, our lust for war as opposed to transformation, our lazy desire to have someone else figure it all out - just dont mess w/ my football game, or whatever drug of choice used to dull us to the consequences of our national choices; still a choice will be made. I hope we choose well. And for better reasons than we have in the past. Excerpts from Sen. Barack Obama's speech in Portland. As a final note: When have you ever heard a politician in recent times appeal to the constitution in such a profound way. And more, to recognize its authority. And to rever it as something to be upheld in the present tense, not as some historical but anachronistic idea. Not since Lincoln have I heard such language from a presidential contender. “We are now gathered to see if that nation, or any nation so constituted can long endure….”
We will close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus. And say no to renditions. Because you will have a president who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and who will obey the Constitution of the United States of America. I don’t want to just end the war. I want to end the mindset that got us into the war. I’m tired of the politics of fear that uses 9/11 as a way to scare folks rather than a way to bring us together. I don’t like it in our own party, I don’t like it in the other party.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-50) not displayed.
.
.
.
#51. To: Hayek Fan (#46)
I am only reading the second amendment. What is the the purpose of 'A' other than justify 'B' as a neat and useful thing to have.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
My friend, I am not baffled. I am only reading the second amendment. You read it and you tell me if you see any reference to God in there.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
I believe the problem goes much deeper than just the 2nd amendment. The WOD, the WOT, the abuse of the commerce clause. It's pretty much made mince meat out of the Bill of Rights.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Yes, I agree but it is not an assumption--that people are going to wake up--that I am going to make at this point. Seems a bit late in the game for those still asleep.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS Second Session February 1982 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1982 88-618 0 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Jr., Maryland JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware PAUL LAXALT, Nevada EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ROBERT DOLE, Kansas HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming DENNIS DeCONCINI, Arizona JOHN P. EAST, North Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa MAX BAUCUS, Montana JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania Vinton DeVane Lide, Chief Counsel Quentin Crommelin, Jr., Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina DENNIS DeCONCINI, Arizona CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa P ATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont Stephen J. Markman, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Randall Rader, General Counsel Peter E. Ornsby, Counsel Robert Feidler, Minority Counsel {snip}
Whether you believe in God or not, do you or do you not believe in an inherent right to defend your life and your property? Yes or no?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. The right to arms is granted by the State because it benefits the State. Wrong. The state cannot "grant" a right, a right is self-evident and inheritent for all men (and women). You can call it "God given", "a natural right", or whatever terminology you wish, but it is not granted by other men. States can grant a privilege, which is different than a right, in that a privilege IS granted by men. B is derived from A, not from God B does not derive from A, just as E does not derive from C, in that the freedom of speech is not derived from the prohibition on any law establishing a religion. Amd 1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. C) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion D) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof E) or abridging the freedom of speech
I couldn't agree more. The government and its useful idiots have pretty much destroyed the Constitution and are doing their best to destroy this country.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I'm not saying any part of Field's concurrence grieved me. I'm merely telling you what the courts have held on this issue. This very matter was discussed in class when I was in law school.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Most excellent post.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. And I can tell you that I don't give a rat's ass what the "courts" have held. I understand English and can read the Constitution just fine. I know what every word in it means and don't need anyone to "interpret" it for me.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Thanks
:/
You're most welcome.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. What you are doing is interpreting the words the way you want them to read. However, we know that the intention of the 2nd amendment is not what you claim. We know this because every amendment in the Bill of Rights, especially the 2nd amendment, was vigourously debated by the founding fathers and each state legislative body. These words were recorded and have been preserved.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Tocqueville, writing in the 1830's on the U.S. Constitution, explained how valuable a feature of that Constitution was that it gave the power to interpret it to the federal courts. Of course, that's basically just what John Marshall had already said.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. So? As a person whose first language is English do you feel the need to have some government whore in a black dress tell you what plain English words mean? That's pretty sad but then I can understand why you might think that the lawyers who graduate to the cult of the black robe are God or at least sit by his side and make all the important decisions.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. How people close to the events (or, in John Marshall's case, living at the time) interpreted the words tells us a lot more about what the writers of the words intended to convey than what somebody now, like me, or you, may choose to believe.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
When Tocqueville wrote that, was anyone in America confused as to the intent of the 2A? It wasn't about the state granting a right to a farmer so he could shoot a turkey. The Amendment's intent then, and now, is a warning to our government should it go rogue. Alteration, modification and ultimate change if necessary is a right of the people.
I don't know. There's been very little case law, then or now, on the Second Amendment. Why don't you look at the scholarly literature, if you want to know? There's been a lot written in the law reviews on the Second Amendment the past few years. I read some of it when I was in law school, but I've forgotten most of what I read, and I'm sure a good deal has been written since then.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
What a picture..... A golden ring is not the prize.
Little or no case law, by your own Tocqueville example, indicates little or no contention.
You mean that you can't read the plain English in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and understand them? Surely you are not saying that you don't understand that simple English, it is not like Chaucer or even Shakespearean English. And some of us even understand those.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Hillbillies understand it. I guess some lawyers need help.
He's a liar. How can you obey the Constitution and be in favor of socialized medicine for starters?
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
Well, let's examine your premise. By that thinking, how can one "obey the Constitution" and be in favor of ROADS?
A - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
B - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
#52. To: James Deffenbach (#50)
You appear to be beyond hope. What is it that baffles you so much about people's rights to defend themselves?
#53. To: James Deffenbach (#48)
You don't have to be "schooled in the law" to understand that you have a right to defend yourself. All people have that right and it is not one the government grants. Government has no rights to grant anyone. People have rights, government has powers. Many times they misuse their powers and deny people's rights but that doesn't mean the people don't have those rights--the only thing lacking is asserting them.
#54. To: Peppa (#47)
I hear you and agree. One of the most astounding things to me is that we ALL still have the SAME DAMMMM PROBLEMS AS WE DID 30 YEARS AGO, and seem FINE with a never ending war as long as we change puppet heads. No one fixes jack. The country is dying and the blame seems to lie only at the feet of voters. If that is true, it is time to expect our fellow Americans to reject the status quo even if that only means,becoming friends with the truth. Stop with the BS already. Change will only come when people wake up.
Lord Acton
#55. To: FormerLurker (#41)
It's always amazed me that those who authored this great piece have since done an about face on the topic.
#56. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#52)
My friend, I am not baffled. I am only reading the second amendment. You read it and you tell me if you see any reference to God in there.
Lord Acton
#57. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#42)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#58. To: Hayek Fan (#53)
I believe the problem goes much deeper than just the 2nd amendment. The WOD, the WOT, the abuse of the commerce clause. It's pretty much made mince meat out of the Bill of Rights.
Lord Acton
#59. To: James Deffenbach (#40)
#60. To: FormerLurker (#57)
Lord Acton
#61. To: aristeides (#59)
I'm not saying any part of Field's concurrence grieved me. I'm merely telling you what the courts have held on this issue. This very matter was discussed in class when I was in law school.
Lord Acton
#62. To: James Deffenbach (#60)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#63. To: James Deffenbach (#54)
Seems a bit late in the game for those still asleep.
#64. To: FormerLurker (#62)
Lord Acton
#65. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#51)
I am only reading the second amendment. What is the the purpose of 'A' other than justify 'B' as a neat and useful thing to have.
#66. To: James Deffenbach (#61)
I know what every word in it means and don't need anyone to "interpret" it for me.
#67. To: Peppa (#63)
:/
Lord Acton
#68. To: aristeides (#66)
Tocqueville, writing in the 1830's on the U.S. Constitution, explained how valuable a feature of that Constitution was that it gave the power to interpret it to the federal courts. Of course, that's basically just what John Marshall had already said.
Lord Acton
#69. To: James Deffenbach (#68)
#70. To: aristeides, Tocqueville (#66)
#71. To: Jethro Tull (#70)
When Tocqueville wrote that, was anyone in America confused as to the intent of the 2A?
#72. To: James Deffenbach (#67)
#73. To: aristeides (#71)
There's been very little case law, then or now, on the Second Amendment.
#74. To: aristeides (#69)
Lord Acton
#75. To: James Deffenbach (#74)
You mean that you can't read the plain English in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and understand them? Surely you are not saying that you don't understand that simple English, it is not like Chaucer or even Shakespearean English. And some of us even understand those.
#76. To: aristeides (#0)
#77. To: Critter (#76)
He's a liar. How can you obey the Constitution and be in favor of socialized medicine for starters?
 | Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise. |
#78. To: aristeides (#66)
Can you show me where in the Constitution it says that the federal courts have the power to "interpret" the Constitution?
Tocqueville, writing in the 1830's on the U.S. Constitution, explained how valuable a feature of that Constitution was that it gave the power to interpret it to the federal courts.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
#79. To: Elliott Jackalope (#77)
Article 1, section 8: To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
#80. To: Peppa (#75)
How did you'ns know I wuz a hillbilly? ahaha.
Hillbillies understand it. I guess some lawyers need help.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#81. To: James Deffenbach (#80)
You mean, we iz cuzn's?? Shooooot.. I better put on a cake. :)
How did you'ns know I wuz a hillbilly? ahaha.
#82. To: Peppa (#81)
Yep, daz rat! We iz cuzzin's and I have a powerful hankerin' for some good cake.
Shooooot.. I better put on a cake. :)
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#83. To: James Deffenbach (#82)
Allllllllllriiiiiiiiight!! I better make a ham just in case. ;)
Yep, daz rat! We iz cuzzin's and I have a powerful hankerin' for some good cake.
#84. To: Peppa (#83)
Now you're talkin'! Your cuz likes ham mighty fine. And sum of them thar homemade rolls and a apple pie wouldn't go amiss neither. ahaha.
I better make a ham just in case. ;)
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#85. To: James Deffenbach (#84)
Cake and pie? I kin tell right now, you from mom's side. LOL!
Now you're talkin'! Your cuz likes ham mighty fine. And sum of them thar homemade rolls and a apple pie wouldn't go amiss neither. ahaha.
#86. To: Critter (#78)
Article III, Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution". Obviously, to decide such cases, a court has to interpret the Constitution. John Marshall explains all this much better than I could in Marbury v. Madison.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#87. To: Critter (#76) (Edited)
Given the way the courts have interpreted the Commerce Clause, socialized medicine would clearly be constitutional. You guys obviously interpret the Constitution very differently from the way the courts do. But why don't you give that disagreement a rest for a while? The Bush regime is presently threatening rights that virtually all lawyers would agree are constitutionally guaranteed. Why don't you ally yourselves with us lawyers until we and you can get those rights back? Once that is done, then you can resume your disagreements with the lawyers and the courts.
How can you obey the Constitution and be in favor of socialized medicine for starters?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#88. To: aristeides, Jethro Tull, christine (#0) (Edited)
We will close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus. And say no to renditions. Because you will have a president who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and who will obey the Constitution of the United States of America. I don’t want to just end the war. I want to end the mindset that got us into the war. I’m tired of the politics of fear that uses 9/11 as a way to scare folks rather than a way to bring us together. I don’t like it in our own party, I don’t like it in the other party. That awesome quote is enough to My favorite line in the speech:
get keep my vote. Viva Obama!
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
#89. To: Peppa (#85)
Well yeah, you got to have apple pie with ham. It's agin the way not to have it together! And you don't want to do stuff agin the way, do you?
Cake and pie? I kin tell right now, you from mom's side. LOL!
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#90. To: Arator (#88)
P.T. Barnum had folks like you in mind when he said there was a sucker born every minute. And Obummer is so proud of you dupes too.
That awesome quote is enough to get my vote. Viva Obama!
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#91. To: Arator (#88)
How does releasing muzzies back to the caves they came from help me get through the day :P
.
.
.
Comments (92 - 182) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest