He plans to violate the U.S Constitution. 

Now, admittedly, most of today’s politicians are at fault on this one, but Obama takes it to a new level.  His ideas about the role of government in private life, particularly regarding the redistribution of wealth, are completely at odds with the U.S. Constitution, a document written specifically to limit the powers and reach of the Federal government.

For example, Obama wants to use the Federal tax code as a way of redistributing wealth from richer to poorer folks, by raising taxes on the upper income people and crediting “negative tax” to those lower on the scale.  (Negative taxes mean that rather than the poor simply paying no taxes [essentially what happens now], the poor actually receive money from the rich, via the IRS, on April 15.)

Now, whether or not you think this idea has merit (we can argue Socialism and Marxism later), such “equalizing of wealth” is not a power granted by the Constitution to the Federal government.  In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, our Founders gave specific powers to the Federal government, none of which even hint at enforced “fairness,” social spending, etc.

As if that weren’t clear enough, some patriots at our nation’s founding worried that the Federal government might not interpret this list of granted powers as the limit of their reach, but the beginning of it.  They feared that the Federal government would grow beyond the scope they intended, and become just as controlling, taxing and tyrannical as the British crown.  So, they insisted on the 10^th Amendment, the last statement in the Bill of Rights:

“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.”

Now, I freely admit that politicians on both sides of the aisle have conveniently ignored this Amendment – this right – of the people.

Obama correctly asserts that he wants change in America – but his sort of change is precisely opposite of our founding documents.  That means that if/when he stands to proclaim his oath of office, to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, he’ll be lying, plain and simple.

He has no intention of preserving or protecting Article I, Section 8, nor does he plan to defend the 10^th Amendment.  In fact, his policy ideas may be America’s final step away from its Constitution.

So, what does this all mean?

1.  If Americans really believe that social spending and “spreading the wealth” should be functions of the Federal government, then they need to pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants this power to Congress, or write a new constitution that includes socialist values.  Our current Constitution has a viable amendment process, whereby the States agree to a “change of terms” in the agreement that binds them together as “United States.”

2.  As it stands today, the individual States could (and do) implement such changes on their own, but based on the 10^th Amendment, the Federal government should have nothing to do with social spending programs.  (For example, if Maine wanted to institute government health care, or a socialistic tax policy, that’s their decision.  But the Federal government can’t do it without amending its founding contract with the States.)

3.  The Supreme Court has not been vigilant in fulfilling its Constitutional role either, allowing such legislation to pass in the past, and probably allowing it through in the future. 

4.  America was founded on a simple principle: limited, accountable government.  Electing leaders who wish to expand the government’s role without being accountable to the Constitutional process would be a grave mistake.

As one familiar with Constitutional law, Senator Obama should echoing these sentiments, urging that his brand of “change” pass through the legislative channels required by our founding documents.  However, he is well aware that the States won’t ratify any such amendment, and thus seeks to bring socialism to our shores by ignoring the Constitution and packing the courts with those who will do the same.

His failure to uphold the Constitution should disqualify him from the Presidency, and should alarm every freedom-loving citizen, Republican or Democrat.

**************

Evidence: In this previous eRev post, I show how Senator Obama wishes to levy taxes on Americans to enforce “fairness,” not because it would help the government fulfill its legitimate Constitutional functions.

Also see:

No to Obama: Reason 2: He will expose the United States to unnecessary military risk.

No to Obama: Reason 1:  He lacks moral convictions on the issue that matters most: human rights.

He will expose the United States to unnecessary military risk.

Obama has promised to “slow the development of future combat systems” and to make “deep cuts” in our nuclear arsenal. Consider:

-America’s known enemies are actively increasing their military power.

- the U.S.military is the one force on earth that can stand against radical Islamic facism and resurgent, militant Communism.

- there are growing threats from unexpected places, like Russia and Venezuela.

-U.S.military strength, specifically our nuclear arsenal, is the only reason our nation is not attacked by vicious enemies who seek (and even pray) for our destruction.  Staying ahead of these enemies in military strength and technology is critical to our children's future.

The United States has nothing to gain and everything to lose from the “deep cuts” Obama proposes. His idea that a weakened military makes us somehow morally stronger is not only absurd, but downright frightening. Peace is always made possible by strength, not just “strong words.”

This leads us to some important questions:

>“Future combat systems” would undoubtedly save American lives (especially our troops) during a time of war. Why would Obama want to slow such development down?

> Is not the prevention of war, along with the speedy and decisive execution of needed war, the most important investment our government can make, and a primary purpose for which the government exists? [“Provide for the common defense”] 

> If budget-cutting is really important, how about looking to less-critical areas of government spending first?

> What candidate is Iran, Russia, Syria and al-Qaeda rooting for right now, based on what you know from their policy positions?  (If you aren't sure, just watch the video below.)

We need a leader who understands that foreign policy can’t be dictated by lawyers; that international leadership isn’t settled at a banquet, but on the battlefield.

Obama is not that leader. In his own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRGru2CPC4E

Also see: