CreateDebate


Debate Info

40
18
No Yes
Debate Score:58
Arguments:31
Total Votes:85
Ended:11/04/08
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No (20)
 
 Yes (11)

Debate Creator

JakeJ(3254) pic



This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

Is Barack Obama against the U.S. Constitution?

He says it's flawed.

No

Side Score: 40
Winning Side!
VS.

Yes

Side Score: 18

Obama never said the constitution was flawed. He said that it was contained a list of "negative liberties." This does not mean "bad liberties

Here is the wikipedia article about "negative liberties"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

He even has a law degree from Harvard! Clearly not the education of someone who is against the constitution!

Side: No
jessepa83(184) Disputed
0 points

Jerome Corsi also studied at Harvard and is openly anti-Obama despite how critics of his most recent book have attempted to silence him. Additionally, while the Constitution wasn't intended to be a living document, it does have its flaws (see, for example, the 16th amendment).

Side: Yes
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

Whether or not Jerome Corsi supports Obama is irrelevant to this debate.

Side: No
1 point

Jerome Corsi was the person who led the "swift boat veterans" adds against Kerry, adds that are widely considered one of the worst examples smear tactics in recent U.S. political history. His opinions carry very little weight. In fact, the book you are talking about contained numerous factual errors. This is the real reason people criticized his book.

Corsi even appeared on a white supremacist talk show to promote the book.

Side: No

No, he's not against the Constitution but there have been and are further amendments that could be made to reflect the progression of history and its people. What our founding fathers experienced and had in front of them is very different than what we see and have in front of us today. Thank God for the Bill of Rights and any amendment made to that document for it must reflect not only the foundation but the strides that have been made since its inception.

Side: No

Of course he's against the U.S. Constitution, but so is John McCain, and so has been virtually every president in U.S. history in at least some respects.

Side: yes

Hi H&C;...Long Time! I believe you've missed the tenor of this particular debate! It is my belief the author wishes to cast dispersions on Senator Obama making him unworthy of our vote. He is for McCain at Obama's expense!

Side: Yes
0 points

of course he is hes trying to get rid of our right to bare arms he say their dangerous dont get me worng i dont like guns but if im being rob and my family in danger and he has a gun im not going call the and i each for mine oh wait obama just got rid of the so i die my family all just because obama got rid of the right to bare arms

Side: yes
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

"hes trying to get rid of our right to bare arms"

False.

Supporting Evidence: FactCheck (www.factcheck.org)
Side: No
-1 points

Yes,

Barack Obama was an anti-constitutionalist professor. He studied the Constitution and rejected it.

Obama:"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"

He sees government as something that can do something to people.

Side: yes
4 points

In this context, "negative liberties" does not mean bad liberties. It means, just as he said, a list of things that can't be done to you by the government. This is opposed to the bill off rights which shows a list of "positive liberties" meaning that it enumerates the actual liberties of the people. Even Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers used this term.

There is no such thing as an "anti-constitutionalist" professor. You took what he said completely out of context, and thus changed the meaning completely.

Supporting Evidence: Negative Liberties (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: No
2 points

Who down-voted this? It's the simple truth.

Side: No
3 points

Jake J....I was addressing you when I asked you to back your quotes up. You quote what Obama says but do not back it up with the source for context or further information. Are you a hit and run squawker or a debater?

Side: Obama NEVER rejected the Constitution
JakeJ(3254) Disputed
0 points

http://www.createdebate.com/argument/newarg/2708/4572/24224/1

OBAMA: "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 has 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 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, uh, in some ways we still suffer from that."

Of course im a debater, not thathit and run crap you just made up.

Side: yes
Tamisan(890) Disputed
2 points

His analysis is one of several popular ones on the Constitution and is not wrong or anti-constitution, merely analytical.

It is a fact that the constitution primarily indicates what the Federal government cannot do. This was reactionary to the horrid treatment from the British controlling the colonies. If you were in a club where everyone treated you like shit, you'd probably start your own club with rules about what you cannot do, as well.

In no way did he reject the constitution, he took it contextually. This is how all documents (including and especially the Bible) must be taken in order to understand them properly.

He has stated it was flawed, but everything human can be improved. If it were not flawed we would not have needed the Amendments and Bill of Rights.

Questioning any part of the government is one of the most American things you can do. If our founding fathers had not questioned those leading them there would be no United States of America. By daring to question something, we require ourselves to logically and objectively examine all aspects. How can we see the flaws in a diamond if we do not put it under a microscope?

In the words of Timothy Leary: “Think for yourself and question authority”.

Supporting Evidence: Wikipedia on the Constitution of the United States of America (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: Questioning is not opposing
2 points

Can you back that up with some facts from those days please? You quote him but do not reveal the source. We need to know context as well!

Side: No
0 points

Obama's anti-constitutionalist stances are clear from his votes in both the Illinois and the U.S. Senate. To point out just a few examples, he has voted to support Cheney's energy bill, the FISA amendments, and the Wall Street bailout. The NRA also has a website devoted specifically to pointing out his consistent anti-gun record.

Side: Yes
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

First, what do the energy bill or the bailout have to do with the Constitution?

Second, McCain was even more pro-FISA than Obama.

Third, the NRA has "distorted Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition." (source)

Side: No
1 point

Technically we were talking about the constitution and not the bill of rights, but hey I guess the NRA is a good source for unbiased views about gun control.

Side: No
0 points

...And these things you point out have what to do with the Constitution or Barack Obama's opinion of it jessepa83?

Side: Obama NEVER rejected the Constitution