One of the just whacked out things that a President can say is that the Constitution (to which he swears an oath to upon ascending to the Office of President) is wrong. However, as Obama has said:(in defense of the antithesis of what is actually in the Constitution – his support for "positive rights"):
But, the 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 its been interpreted and 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, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think 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 coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”
Bruce Walker over at American Thinker put it well:
How can liberty be anything other than negative? Liberty is the absence of external control. Only in our age of collective thinking and untidy language could such a thing as "positive liberty" be conceived. The state power to coerce is not liberty.
One of the forum members at Occupy NH had this to say:
Unfortunately our constitutional rights are based on the concept of negative liberty and thus the ideal is "equality of opportunity – not results",
My response?
And they were done for a purpose. If you read the Federalist papers and the other works of that time explaining what the underlying philosophy of our founding, there was one important and overriding function of government: to protect our individual liberties and our Rights.
That is why the "negative liberties" as some have called them – the limiting of what government can do to you to wall the government from encroaching on the Rights the founders believed stemmed from God – were done that way. As I said before, the exercise of those Rights requires nothing from anyone, or from Government. The exercise of my Rights costs you nothing – not even the favor of your attention.
For if those Rights remain inviolate, they reasoned, we the people would take care of everything else. And in fact, Alexis de Toqueville in his seminal treatise on how democracy was functioning in America, was utterly amazed at how little government did "for the people" but how much "the people did for themselves and for those around them". He correctly recognized that the strength of the American people came from their willingness to be first non-reliant on government / the State in their lives (as was more the norm in Europe) and their willingness to assist those around them in need (family, friends, & neighbors).
To me, that is a Feature and part of the brilliance of the founders’ work, as for over a century, it kept Government in the background and Society at large (the two not being the same) preeminent. It allows people to follow "the pursuit of happiness" on their own terms and in their own way. Doesn’t mean that they (you or I) will obtain it, but it also means Government should not be in our way of doing so.
With FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, the "positive" Rights (to which Obama heartily ascribes), that whole philosophy goes out the window. In fact, for you to exercise one of these "Rights" (putting Rights into quotes on purpose), it necessarily demands that someone do something for you. In essence, you now have the Right to make an absolute claim on another to provide for you (or your demand for someone to provide for a third person).
This changes the entire dynamic of the relationship that was originally intended from the beginning which was our Government derives its legitimacy from sovereign, independent individuals and flips that on its head. Instead, people derive their sense of being based on what Government gives or provides for them.
That would mean that Government now has the right to take from your labors. Even as some of this thread has morphed into discussing the Rights for Workers, you cannot get away from the obvious, in demanding that Workers be supreme over capital, you must necessarily make Government supreme over Society.
So much for "the land of the Free and the home of the Brave", eh?
I will ask you the same question asked of Matthew, but in a different fashion – how is it "fair" to require equal results (or equal outcomes) in light of the founding negative rights, and in light of the inherent differences between individuals? After all, I cannot act as well as a George Clooney to receive $50 million for a movie (even though I have a FAR better moustache!), nor could he write better software than I for, well, far less, right?
Changing the philosophy from people being in charge to Government in charge, I have another large concern – how does one prevent "equal results" from becoming simply a political process, and ANYthing that then involves a Government policy or decision becomes rife with rent-seeking from all sides (corporations, wealthy people, unions, advocacy group, social services organization – the list goes on and on)?