Preserving the Constitution

Following her Texas and Ohio primary victories over rival Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton proclaimed, "We're going to protect our country and preserve our Constitution. We're going to lead with our values." So, once again Clinton has said two different things at the same time. Sort of like when she didn't support supporting her non-support for her support of driver's licenses for illegals.

Saying that you're going to support the Constitution sure sounds good. But when you then say that you are going to "lead with [your] values" in the next sentence and when your "values" so often run counter to the Constitution that's just too easy a target. And I'm sure not going to pass it up for the topic of an article.

But maybe we should run down the list just to clarify what I mean.

Hillary Clinton has said that she will take money from the oil companies, and all the average Americans invested in them, for her version of the common good which includes money for all sorts of social programs. I'm sitting here right now with my handy dandy copy of the Constitution looking for that justification. Hmmm. Let me see. Social programs ... social programs ... nope - not in there.

Hillary Clinton wants to establish a national healthcare system in which you will be required to enroll and required to pay into. Wait a second while I flip this copy of the Constitution over to see if that happens to be scrawled on the back since it isn't on the front. Nope. I can't seem to find the authority for the federal government to dictate who you can and cannot contract with for services.

Senatorette Clinton will also maintain our biggest entitlement programs (Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). Hang on a second while I get another copy of the Constitution because this one doesn't seem to contain justification for that either. I must have a faulty copy.

Nope. This new copy also doesn't have any authority for such actions and the taking of money from one America to give to another. I guess my original copy is good after all. Perhaps Hillary should send me a copy of the revised and extended version of the United States Constitution that she seems to be reading from.

What's more, Hillary Clinton has pledged to recruit more teachers and increase teacher salaries. Something is really wrong here because I don't see anything in the Constitution about hiring teachers or manipulating salaries.

Let's see, what other values does Hillary have? Well, she's pro-murdering unborn children. That certainly doesn't square with the Constitution which was amended to say that death is only allowable as punishment for a crime after one has been duly convicted in a trial. What crime have unborn children committed I wonder?

I could go on and on and on. But it's just going to be more of the same; a lot of me and every thinking American scratching our collective heads wondering how, with a platform like this, Hillary Clinton can even claim that she is going to "preserve" the Constitution. I would suggest that she "read" the Constitution first before making claims about what she will do with it.

But this is nothing new. Liberals have for years been talking about how they are really the champions of the Constitution. They're not, but they talk like they are. And year after year people fawn over their claims and vote for them because they actually believe that acting counter to almost everything the Constitution itself stands for is supporting and preserving the Constitution.

The Constitution is a pretty simple document. It says that the federal government has very limited authority. And it goes on to say that every authority not granted to the federal government through it is reserved by the States and the people.

I have no doubt, however, that like in every other election there will be some Americans so ignorant of what the Constitution actually says that they will vote for Hillary because they actually think that she is going to preserve that founding document. Just like I have no doubt that right now there are many liberals reading this article and seething in rage that I would dare call them ignorant and, even worse, point out how what they believe in is 180 degrees out of phase with American principles.