Clarification

As is turns out, I have to clarify the context of a quote from the President.

I said that he called the Constitution "deeply flawed". That's not exactly what he said, but it was close. Even so, to simply say that without the context of the entire interview is not doing him justice, and therefore, not doing me justice.

So, what exactly did he say?

From Newsmax.

His "deep flaws" comment was directed at the Framers and the colonial attitudes at the time. It's pretty clear he's referring to racist colonial attitudes towards Africans. Now, I don't have the Constitution memorized, but I know that the Civil War Amendments were intended to bring African-Americans under the umbrella of citizen status, and as such, protected by the Constitution (but by no means ended racism). So my problem with his statements here are when he used the words, "the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day". The blind spot being racism, I think I can safely assume. To me, his comments here reflect his wish that the Constitution should somehow set right the issue of race relations. What he apparently believes is that morality can be legislated.

Here's an interview he did in 2001, which is a bit more revealing. He refers to the Warren Court and their inability to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" when it came to the issue of "redistribution of wealth". What??!!?? He's saying here that the Warren Court "wasn't that radical" because it failed to clarify what the government should "do on your behalf", or redistribute wealth (in other words... Marxism?).

Here's one last quote from Obama and his views of the Constitution. From The Audacity of Hope: "I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." Granted, the Constitution is amendable, and in the case of most Amendments, it has been justified (Prohibition excluded). But to say that it should be read in the context of an "ever-changing world" is appalling to me. The Constitution is the basis of everything that makes the United States the greatest country on the planet. To say that it can be read differently in 1950 as you would today is absolutely rediculous. You might as well throw it out.

So, to sum up... although he did not exactly say the Constitution was "deeply flawed", in my opinion that's exactly what he thinks.

Peace.