As most of  my friends and associates are aware, I have generally been keeping a low profile this past year in terms of opinion writing because I am currently serving as the 2008 Chairman of the Constitutional Organization Of Lebanon (COOL), which has been focused on educating citizens of the state on the US Constitution.

Having said that, I have decided to step out of the shadows and express my thoughts regarding the upcoming election, especially as it relates to the Presidential election, not so much because of political ideology but because of recent revelations made by one candidate and his perception of the Supreme Law of the Land.

Yes, I am refering to Barack Obama, and the disclosure in the past few days that he thinks the US Constitution is fundamentally "flawed."

I have been greatly distressed by what I have observed to be anti-libertarian tendancies on the part of the Obama campaign, especially as it relates to the First Amendment. 

There is something wrong when a candidate for US President threatens and intimidates radio and television stations with lawsuits if they run anti-Obama ads paid for by the National Rifle Association.  There is something wrong when a candidate for US President throws a fit and pulls his ads and refuses future interviews with a television station when an interviewer asks questions which cut to close to home. 

Indeed, there is something wrong when the Obama campaign remains silent while members of his own political party have made it abundantly clear that they will reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine", which will silence all criticism of the ruling party on the public airwaves.

For if the First Amendment is not safe, then which other clause in the Bill of Rights is?

But most disturbing of all are Obama's opinions, expressed in a 2001 radio interview, that essentially cast the US Constitution and our Founding Fathers as "flawed."  While any observant individual would be disturbed by such comments, the fact is that any patriotic American should be outraged.

For if the Constituion is "flawed", then by extension, does that not mean that it is invalid and a failed document?  Indeed, by asserting that the Constitution is "flawed", does that not mean our entire system of government is "flawed", that our very system of justice and political checks-and-balances is inherently wrong?  By calling the Constitution "flawed", is not Obama essentially saying that our form of government, which has essentially worked well for the past 200 years, is a mistake?

In fact, if we delve further into Obama's comments (for Obama himself is offering nothing to reassure liberty-loving Americans that he was 'misspeaking'), how can we not conclude that it is his opinion that our very form of government - a constitutional republic where the citizens elect their political leaders - is wrong? 

Is he not suggesting that we should abandon our current representative democracy, where the power of government comes from the bottom-up, is derived from the people themselves?  Is he not intimating that power is best delegated from the government, that power comes from the top-down?

One cannot call the US Constitution an inherently "flawed" document without essentially saying that the entire document and its advocacy of a government derived from the authority of the people is inherently "flawed" and a mistake.  The very nature of law, of justice, of independent states joining together to form "a more perfect union" are among the fundamental principles outlined in the Constitution; if the Constitution is "flawed", is that not also a suggestion that those fundamental principles are flawed as well?

What is perhaps most frightening about this entire episode is the fact that while political conservatives - who have a great, general appreciation for the Constitution - have historically been suspicious of the real intentions of political liberals, Obama is the first politican seeking the highest office in the land to have come out of the closet (albeit via a past interview) and say exactly what it is that liberals truly believe: that the US Constitution is essentially  a bad document.  By default, would that not mean that it is Obama's opinion (and that of liberals in general) that the Constitution is, at the least, null and void, and at most, should be replaced? 

And if such is the case, are such individuals worthy of even being considered for public office. let alone Presidency of the United States?

When I go into the polls on November 4, I will no longer be evaluating the Presidential candidates based upon their economic and social principles; I will be evaluating them based upon a more fundamental basis - whether they will fulfill their duty to "protect and defend the Constituion of the United States". 

If a man does not believe that the Constitution is a valid and honorable document, then how can he swear to protect and defend it?

####