The Wall Street Journal is obviously worried, very worried...in a current article about the Senator from Chicago who is running for President of the United States of America...they write...


{Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: "[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical."

He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after...}

WSJ article

So...the Senator from Chicago thinks that the courts should "favor" the little guy over "powerful" people and institutions?

Why then have we not heard about the use of national intelligence against Joe the Plumber? And, that from the Senator from Chicago's own camp?

We are to be led into a legal precedence where the socio/economic condition of the individual takes precedence over law?

And, the WSJ's question about can the Senator from Chicago in good faith swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States is a vital question...esp when the Senator from Chicago has on more than one occasion openly expressed sarcastic, as well as in his mind reasoned, disdain for the Constitution of the United States of America.

It now makes one question just exactly when the Senator from Chicago thinks the United States of America was ever truly great? That has been his pitch...to restore the once and lost greatness of America...when Senator, do you think America was ever truly great...if her founding document is so detestably flawed?

Will you answer this question...? Senator...?