Good advice. And Gonzales manifestly deserved to go.
But where was Hillary Clinton with her good advice when Bill Clinton signed the Communications Decency Act into law in 1996 - which sought to bring the Internet under the same unconstitutional regulation that the FCC metes out to broadcasters every day, in blatant violation of the First Amendment? (Fortunately, the Supreme Court struck this law down.)
And where was Hillary Clinton when she authorized Bush's taking the country to war in Iraq, without the Declaration of War required by our Constitution? And where was she when Bill Clinton did the same against Serbia?
It's all too easy to make support of the Constitution a political sound-bite, a weapon you can use against your adversaries.
What counts are politicians who do more than mouth the right words - we need people who respect the Constitution in their votes and their actions.
Ron Paul is really the only candidate in either party with a record of unambiguous, clear support of the Constitution - voting against illegal wars and attacks on the First Amendment at every opportunity.
The Democrats, including Hillary, have a lot of good they can contribute to the American people. But they need to start walking the walk as well as talking the talk about following the Constitution.
1 comment:
The other candidates are starting to copy what Ron Paul says. The problem is, they can't actually back that up, nor do they actually mean it.
It just goes to show they know how much support Ron Paul really has. But why don't we see Hilliary and others talking about the constitution when they talk about why they support their positions? They also take the same oath to the constitution, as do the military and many others.
Hey, any politician can say they will do good things. Tell me how/why what you want to do is better, why and how the constitution supports your position.
For example, any candidate in favor of healthcare that isn't in favor of adding an amendment to the constitution isn't following the constitution. They instead abuse the general welfare clause, when the general welfare is also mentioned in the preamble as part of the purpose of the constitution. It's clear the amendments are how you define the general welfare. Yet, they abuse the general welfare and cater to special interests groups rather than the entire American public.
With the abuse of the general welfare clause we live in a government of limited rights, those specifically listed, rather than a limited government who's job is to protect and provide those limited rights with the freedom of Americans to make the more personal and social choices.
Post a Comment