McBama’s Crimes Against the Constitution

Much can be asked of why I plan to vote for a third-party candidate this year. My reasons are obvious: I doubt the sincerity of the oath that our next president will take, so long as it is John McCain or Barack Obama.

Like almost any year in the twentieth century, this election year offers no major presidential candidate that supports the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate of 2008, taught "constitutional law" for ten years. John McCain, the Republican, has been a member of Congress in 1982, which means he has sworn to uphold the Constitution six times under oath.

With that said, you might think these men would take their oaths to protect and defend the most fragile document of our country seriously. Yet, both have a track record for violating the Constitution day after day.

A topic such as the Constitution could take days to cover. Therefore, I cannot cover every crime the top two presidential candidates have committed against the supreme law of the land.

According to Thomas Jefferson, the Tenth Amendment is the cornerstone of the Constitution. It reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Thomas Jefferson's unwavering defense of the Tenth Amendment and other elements in the Constitution became known as "strict constructionism." His opponents, such as Alexander Hamilton (who actually argued for a monarchistic government for the entire continent), argued for a more flexible interpretation, which became known as "loose constructionism." Oddly enough, the Revolution was provoked by a loose interpretation of the British Constitution.

In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama very plainly expresses his distain for strict constructionism:

"When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers to give direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected.

"I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world."

The Framers of the Constitution recognized the need to change laws from time to time, which is why they gave us the right to make constitutional amendments, such as the abolition of slavery.

Justice Breyer's loose interpretation is willfully ignorant and completely disregards the Tenth Amendment in favor of the federal government's unchained right to pass any program into law that it wants to.

This is the same view that led to Harry Truman's steel mill seizure in 1952, Woodrow Wilson's imprisonment of Eugene V. Debs for speaking out against World War I, and Bill Clinton's "impeachment bombing" of the Serbs, despite congressional refusal. Let's not forget about the man who questioned the constitutionality of Theodore Roosevelt's coal mine strike. The president grabbed the man and infamously proclaimed, "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!"

John McCain claims to support strict constructionism, but unfortunately, his voting record suggests otherwise. McCain and many other Republicans have supported the Tenth Amendment only at convenience.

The First Amendment is intended to protect our Freedom of Speech, for example.

Yet, John McCain drafted a bill with Democratic Senator Russ Feingold that attacked this right with a provision in The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (a.k.a. "McCain-Feingold") that authorized a federal speech code that can enforce up to five years of jail time.

McCain-Feingold was drafted and signed into law before Barack Obama became a U.S. Senator. But Obama has spent his three years in the Senate attacking the same fundamental right with not only no promise to end McCain's attack on free speech, but in addition to that, he supported the "Fairness Doctrine" before he was against it.

According to Obama's press secretary, Michael Ortiz, "Senator Obama does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters."

Read the rest of this statement:

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

In other words, the Fairness Doctrine on steroids. Meaning government limiting free speech, overregulating the internet, and giving your tax dollars to liberal personalities, like they did with the now bankrupt Air America. Although the Communist Manifesto highly recommends it, I don't see any article in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to regulate any media outlet it wants to.

The examples are endless, but one thing is clear - we haven't had a genuine constitutional government since the days of Calvin Coolidge. You can expect the guillible masses to vote on the lesser of two evils. At the end of the day, I ask, "Why vote for evil at all?"

This is why I stand by my support for Chuck Baldwin, the presidential candidate of the Constitution Party.

As John Quincy Adams once said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."