This Constitution . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land.
—U.S. Constitution, Art. VI, § 2
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
—U.S. Presidential Oath of Office
I support returning strict adherence to Constitutional principles to our government.
—Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson (plank 9 of 9 from his Press release declaring his intent to seek the Libertarian Party nomination.)
The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.
—President Barack Obama
[Texas Governor Rick] Perry has asserted that a federally run Social Security program is unconstitutional. If this remains his position, it suggests that the program must be devolved to the states notwithstanding the advisability of such an approach.
—Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, September 21, 2011
As Mark Fitzgibbons and Richard Viguerie explain in The Law that Governs Government: Reclaiming the Constitution from Usurpers and Society’s Biggest Lawbreaker, the Constitution is the only safeguard we have to keep the federal government in check. The government cannot be scaled back to a manageable size without strong adherence to fundamental Constitutional principles.
We will not have fiscal responsibility without a strong constitutional president. Economic liberty will not be protected without a strong constitutional president. Personal liberty will not be protected without a strong constitutional president. In many ways you could say that 2012 is a referendum on the Constitution, because without it nearly every other issue is moot.
Like it or not, we have a three-horse race for the White House (which will blossom into a four-horse race when Americans Elect selects a candidate), and right now there’s only one strong constitutional candidate in the race.
We know Obama’s views of the constitution; it’s an old rag whose primary use is to line a litter box. George W. Bush was no different, and whenever either has mentioned the Constitution it has been a cause for alarm, not comfort. If defending the Constitution is a vote-turning issue for you, Obama obviously ain’t your man.
Sadly, Mitt Romney has shown a propensity for playing fast and loose with the Constitution. That should come as no surprise—he learned constitutional principles from the same Harvard law faculty that taught Obama and Clinton. When Romney breaks out constitutional “principles” (if they can be called such), it’s a political ploy, not a philosophical argument. He knows that conservatives and Tea Partiers respect the Constitution, so he throws the term around loosely to garner support, even if his arguments don’t withstand even casual scrutiny.
For example, consider his statements regarding ObamaCare and its forebear, RomneyCare. Romney has said again and again that RomneyCare is “right for Massachusetts,” and that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. (When Romney mentions the Constitution, the hairs on the back of your neck should stand on end.)
So, let’s take a look at Romney’s constitutional claim. ObamaCare could be unconstitutional while RomneyCare is constitutional for two main reasons: a) the federal mandate is unconstitutional, but the state mandate suffers no such infirmity, or b) principles of federalism dictate that health care is a state issue, and Congress lacks authority under Article I to implement a national health care plan.
Looking at the first, states undoubtedly have more authority under their general police powers than Congress. So the idea that a state can force you to purchase health insurance where the federal government cannot is plausible—if you are willing to accept that a state’s police powers are broad enough to force you to eat broccoli. (That’s the usual analogy for the mandate.) I do not accept that proposition, and if I were a judge I would strike down the RomneyCare mandate as quickly as ObamaCare’s.
The second possibility is even more troubling. If health care is an area of exclusive state control (the federalist defense of Romney Care), aren’t Medicare and Medicaid also unconstitutional? Is Romney proposing to divest these programs to the states as well? Or would he allow these unconstitutional programs to stand because “advisability” trumps the Constitution—just as with Social Security?
Romney plays fast and loose with the Constitution just like Obama and his predecessors. If elected he will be the fourth straight Harvard grad in the White House to do so. (George H.W. Bush was a Yale grad—even worse.)
In coming weeks as I go through all of Gary Johnson’s main platform planks you will see that the Constitution is a recurring theme in his political thinking. The same cannot be said for the other candidates. But, given that the duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution is job number one for a president, this fact alone makes Gary Johnson the only candidate in the three-horse race who is qualified for the office. The other two deserve our ridicule, not our votes.
This article is also published at The Country Thinker.
Hey Ted. I have a question for you. I am supporting Ron Paul as of this moment. But if it comes down to Obama and say Newt (groan) is it possible for enough of us to pool together for either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson? And will Ron Paul supporters get behind Gary Johnson?
I’m going to vote my conscious regardless but do we divide the libertarian vote between Ron Paul and Gary Johnson if we don’t all come together for one or the either?
Dividing the libertarian vote is a concern for another day.
I am backing Johnson over any of the GOP or Dem candidates. There’s a long way to go, and there’s no chance that he can win if people who believe in his candidacy don’t stand up at the beginning of the process.
I think we have by now a two horse race for the White House and a one horse race for the Republican nomination. Today’s Gallup 5-day average national poll – as published in our site – has Romney 37%, Gingrich 22%, the others too embarrassing to mention.
However and otherwise, I support your view of the role the Constitution should play in our governance.
The latest Reuters poll shows Paul 2nd nationally at 21 %, with Romney dropping to 29%, Gingrich is down to 19% and Santorum up to 18%. Paul and Romney are on the ballot in all fifty states, something the other two can’t say. I say make them steal it.
And then join Johnson when Paul concedes!
Yes, but anti-GOP sentiment is extraordinarily high. If you ignore Johnson’s bid, a Rombama matchup is a one-horse race. Romney has been chosen to be a willing bug on the Obama machine’s windshield.
But you’re right regarding the constitution, John. I’m glad we can agree on that.
I have to admit that I haven’t yet decided whether or not I can vote for Romney or Gingrich if they win the nomination because I do not feel there is a great difference between either of them and Obama. I am seriously considering voting for Johnson because all three of the other candidates will simply be overseeing the fall of the United States, so why not vote for Johnson and let Obama take the hit for the collapse of the nation? A very negative outlook, I know, but at this point I feel the collapse is unavoidable.
I agree with you. 8 years of Romney or Gingrich is as frightening as 4 more of Obama.
I’m with you, Steve!
The difficulty I see in the road ahead for Gary Johnson is that he’s running in an occupied lane. At the moment, Ron Paul, for all that he is not, is carrying the mantle for constitutional representation. That mantle is worth around 20% vote nationally, in the general election.
My question is how well does that mantle fit Gary Johnson. To my distant eye, it does not look like he is positioning himself particularly well to pick that up and run with it if/when Ron Paul finishes his race. I think currently that Ron Paul would get more write ins than Gary would get votes.
Good luck, but it’s not just a matter of making a case. It’s also – and primarily – about being ready to pick up and run with a case that someone else has already been making.