Monte Kuligowski
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is Barack Obama
By Monte Kuligowski
For my liberal friends, the title of this piece doesn't imply that Obama and Justice Ginsburg are literally the same person. They do, however, share precisely the same central-control, collectivist, redistributive ideology. Each views the document they swore to uphold with a smug contempt.
United States Supreme Court justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in Egypt recently to speak at a seminar at Cairo University's law school. While in Egypt, Ginsburg did an Al Hayat television interview. In her now infamous interview, Ginsburg was asked whether Egyptians, in drawing up a Constitution for the country's new era, should look to the constitutions of other countries for assistance.
That should have been Ginsburg's cue to expound upon the virtues of the Constitution of the United States. We might have expected her to have talked about the brilliance of having a limited central government with enumerated powers. She could have mentioned the wisdom of reserving all powers not delegated to the central government to the people and their state governments.
Ginsburg could have endorsed our Constitution as a model for the world. The Constitution used to fashion the freest and most prosperous country in world history could have been given a little respect.
Instead, Justice Ginsburg chose to invalidate our foundational charter before a foreign audience. The justice sworn to defend the document secured by revolution and blood, chose to place it in disrepute.
Here's how the representative of our highest Court answered the interview question:
"You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution — Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights."
The words, "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution," should ring forever in infamy to remind us of the subversive threat of the radical left.
A good question for moderates to ask is whether Barack Hussein Obama II agrees with Ginsburg. The priceless 2001 Chicago radio interview of then-state senator, Barack Obama, provides the answer. On the subject of redistributive economic justice and the Constitution, Obama confessed:
"[T]he Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try 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 the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally 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."
Those are the same reasons Justice Ginsburg would not recommend the U.S. Constitution in 2012. According to the worldview of Obama and Ginsburg, we must "break free" from the "constraints" placed by our founders in the outdated Constitution. Obama and Ginsburg prefer a Constitution that provides a list of what "government must do on your behalf."
That brings us to the Constitution Ginsburg recommends most highly: South Africa's Constitution of 1996. That Constitution is not an old-fashioned charter of "negative liberties;" it empowers the central government to provide for its dependents as though the people are incapable of handling the responsibilities of freedom.
The Bill of Rights of the South African Constitution provides that, "Everyone has the right to have access to health care services, including reproductive health care." Note: not just citizens, but "everyone" gets free healthcare and abortions.
Naturally, all South Africans have a "right" to education, including "adult basic education; and to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible." And, of course, everyone has the right to receive education in the language of his or her choice.
I suppose it's a no brainer, that: "Every worker has the right ... to form and join a trade union; to participate in the activities and programmes of a trade union; and to strike."
Under the idealized Constitution of Ginsburg and no doubt, Obama: "Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing. The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right."
The Constitution of the womb to tomb Nanny State also says that everyone has the right to "sufficient food and water; and social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance." If far-left elitists belief they can cap the earth's temperature rise at 1.5 degrees, why wouldn't they believe government can guarantee crops and rain?
So, who is to pay for all of this? It's anybody's guess (how much foreign aid do we send to South Africa?). Nevertheless, the SA Constitution mandates that, "The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights."
Perhaps the cherry atop this constitutional cake for Obama, Ginsburg and company is the fact that the South Africa Constitutional Court has power to order the redistribution of wealth among the provinces. Come to think of it, that's exactly what Obama lamented over in 1991 — that the Warren Court never "ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth."
The actual quality of life in South Africa is of no concern to the collectivist dreamers. They apparently believe smarter elitists plus more government will usher in the utopian era; wherein everyone (except the ruling class) shares the misery equally.
The Constitution of South Africa represents the hope of the far left in America. Too bad the central-command-and-control dream of radical leftists is the antithesis of America's founding principle of liberty through constitutional federalism. That, of course, is why they despise our Constitution.
Obama has already appointed two. And, if given opportunity Obama will appoint more Ginsburgs to the Supreme Court. Minus the lipstick, Barack Obama is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
© Monte Kuligowski
February 15, 2012
For my liberal friends, the title of this piece doesn't imply that Obama and Justice Ginsburg are literally the same person. They do, however, share precisely the same central-control, collectivist, redistributive ideology. Each views the document they swore to uphold with a smug contempt.
United States Supreme Court justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in Egypt recently to speak at a seminar at Cairo University's law school. While in Egypt, Ginsburg did an Al Hayat television interview. In her now infamous interview, Ginsburg was asked whether Egyptians, in drawing up a Constitution for the country's new era, should look to the constitutions of other countries for assistance.
That should have been Ginsburg's cue to expound upon the virtues of the Constitution of the United States. We might have expected her to have talked about the brilliance of having a limited central government with enumerated powers. She could have mentioned the wisdom of reserving all powers not delegated to the central government to the people and their state governments.
Ginsburg could have endorsed our Constitution as a model for the world. The Constitution used to fashion the freest and most prosperous country in world history could have been given a little respect.
Instead, Justice Ginsburg chose to invalidate our foundational charter before a foreign audience. The justice sworn to defend the document secured by revolution and blood, chose to place it in disrepute.
Here's how the representative of our highest Court answered the interview question:
"You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution — Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights."
The words, "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution," should ring forever in infamy to remind us of the subversive threat of the radical left.
A good question for moderates to ask is whether Barack Hussein Obama II agrees with Ginsburg. The priceless 2001 Chicago radio interview of then-state senator, Barack Obama, provides the answer. On the subject of redistributive economic justice and the Constitution, Obama confessed:
"[T]he Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try 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 the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally 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."
Those are the same reasons Justice Ginsburg would not recommend the U.S. Constitution in 2012. According to the worldview of Obama and Ginsburg, we must "break free" from the "constraints" placed by our founders in the outdated Constitution. Obama and Ginsburg prefer a Constitution that provides a list of what "government must do on your behalf."
That brings us to the Constitution Ginsburg recommends most highly: South Africa's Constitution of 1996. That Constitution is not an old-fashioned charter of "negative liberties;" it empowers the central government to provide for its dependents as though the people are incapable of handling the responsibilities of freedom.
The Bill of Rights of the South African Constitution provides that, "Everyone has the right to have access to health care services, including reproductive health care." Note: not just citizens, but "everyone" gets free healthcare and abortions.
Naturally, all South Africans have a "right" to education, including "adult basic education; and to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible." And, of course, everyone has the right to receive education in the language of his or her choice.
I suppose it's a no brainer, that: "Every worker has the right ... to form and join a trade union; to participate in the activities and programmes of a trade union; and to strike."
Under the idealized Constitution of Ginsburg and no doubt, Obama: "Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing. The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right."
The Constitution of the womb to tomb Nanny State also says that everyone has the right to "sufficient food and water; and social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance." If far-left elitists belief they can cap the earth's temperature rise at 1.5 degrees, why wouldn't they believe government can guarantee crops and rain?
So, who is to pay for all of this? It's anybody's guess (how much foreign aid do we send to South Africa?). Nevertheless, the SA Constitution mandates that, "The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights."
Perhaps the cherry atop this constitutional cake for Obama, Ginsburg and company is the fact that the South Africa Constitutional Court has power to order the redistribution of wealth among the provinces. Come to think of it, that's exactly what Obama lamented over in 1991 — that the Warren Court never "ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth."
The actual quality of life in South Africa is of no concern to the collectivist dreamers. They apparently believe smarter elitists plus more government will usher in the utopian era; wherein everyone (except the ruling class) shares the misery equally.
The Constitution of South Africa represents the hope of the far left in America. Too bad the central-command-and-control dream of radical leftists is the antithesis of America's founding principle of liberty through constitutional federalism. That, of course, is why they despise our Constitution.
Obama has already appointed two. And, if given opportunity Obama will appoint more Ginsburgs to the Supreme Court. Minus the lipstick, Barack Obama is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
© Monte Kuligowski
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
