Says it all.
Published on October 26 2008
I'm obviously not a Harvard lawyer, and never will be. But this ain't the Constitution I learned about in 7th grade civics class, either. I seem to recall being taught that the document was meant to limit government, not to limit me. Maybe I was wrong. Here is the link to the audio.
“And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried 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 it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. “And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that 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 coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.” Eject Eject Eject: SHAME, CUBED.