President-designate King Barack the Spreader gives his thoughtful view of the Constitution:

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.

Change you can believe in?

By the way, David Warren – a Canadian columnist doing the jobs Americans (or at least McCain’s high-priced consultants) won’t do – has a sharp line on His Royal Hopeness:

A man who, should he win the election and serve one term, will have been President of the United States longer than he has held any steady job.

[UPDATE: David Weigel from the lads at Reason responds:

It’s a good line, but Obama was an Illinois state senator from January 1997 to November 2004.

I don’t think David Warren would consider that a “job”, and I certainly don’t. In my own state, the senate sits from January to June and senators receive an annual salary of $100. Which is as it should be. I assume in Illinois the position is more attractive financially, even before it’s bulked up by Chicago machine perks. But in no sense is it any kind of “job”. And I’d hope the Reason boys would agree on that.]