At the Democratic National Convention last week, a Muslim man named Khizr Khan made headlines by claiming that Donald Trump was mistaken in his condemnation of all Muslims. Khan, whose son was an Army captain killed in Iraq, held up a copy of the Constitution and asked if Trump had ever read the document. It was a powerful moment, but perhaps now that the dust has settled a bit we can ask the same question of Hillary Clinton. Because when you compare the two candidates, her understanding of the Bill of Rights seems to be far inferior to her opponent’s.
The First Amendment
Hillary Clinton, like many Democrats, is a fierce critic of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Her hatred of that decision is somewhat personal; an anti-Hillary documentary was at the crux of the case, after all. It’s also terribly hypocritical, considering the degree to which Hillary takes advantage of the super PAC system to fund her campaign.
It’s hard to say how much a problem money is to our political system. Some say that super PAC rules actually help even the playing field, allowing groups of likeminded citizens to compete monetarily with billionaire donors. Others say it’s just a way for politicians to hide the true source of their funding.
Either way, though, it’s quite obvious that these donations are protected by the First Amendment.
The Second Amendment
Hillary Clinton’s stance on gun control is no secret. She wants to go farther than the current president…and that’s all any defender of the Second Amendment needs to hear. Hillary has said often that she opposes the Heller decision.
“I think again we’re way out of balance,” she said this year. “I think that we’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime.”
Uh, not so much.
We have plenty of gun laws on the books, plenty of background checks, and plenty of regulations governing the responsible use and carry of firearms. The problems we have with gun violence are serious, but the last thing we need are gun restrictions that will only affect law-abiding citizens. Hillary Clinton does not respect the Second Amendment, and she will appoint Supreme Court judges who feel the same way. Under her administration, our right to bear arms would be at considerable risk.
Fundamentally, the Constitution provides for a separation of government powers. Congress does its thing, the Supreme Court does its thing, and the White House does its thing. They check each others’ power. That’s the whole point of the system.
For the last eight years, Barack Obama has made it his mission to expand the powers of the presidency. Never was this mission more obvious than when he declared executive amnesty in November of 2014. That declaration has been frozen by the courts, but Hillary Clinton, once again, has promised to go even further than her predecessor. Not only would this be disastrous in terms of immigration, it would be the beginning of the end for our fragile republic.
Hillary Clinton has almost certainly read the Constitution, to be fair.
Whether she believes in it or not…well, that’s another matter.