Ginsburg blasts her employer:
“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” Ginsburg told her foreign audience. Egypt needs a more recent document to work from, she believes, like South Africa’s constitution. South African law guarantees citizens the rights to housing, education and health care—all high-ranking items on the liberal agenda. South Africa’s free speech clause, on the other hand, is much more restrictive than the U.S. Constitution and could be used by oppressors as an easy excuse to squelch any expression deemed to be “controversial.”
“It really is a great piece of work,” Ginsburg said, referring to the South African document. As for America’s Constitution, it’s just too old, she told her Egyptian interviewers.
Talk about burning bridges. What she’s saying is that it’s too liberty-oriented and not friendly enough to governments wishing to do good works, which is what the president wishes he could do too.
“What’s frustrated people,” the president said, “is that I have not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, you know, it turns out that our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes” (emphasis added throughout).
If it wasn’t for that old document, we’d be a lot further along with our radical agenda of fundamentally transforming the United States of America!
The president has long desired to cast off the restraints of the U.S. Constitution. During a 2001 interview, many years before he became president, Mr. Obama criticized the document as being a charter of negative liberties. He said, “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.”
Yep. There’s no school like the old school.
