A constitutional right to what?

“There is also a constitutional right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness…”

Hillary Clinton

Huh? Where to even start with this statement by Hillary Clinton? Let’s begin with the fact that the erstwhile prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination seems to have confused the United States Constitution with, um, another document.

Thomas Jefferson was a great many things, but an author of the Constitution was not one of them.

Regarding the very first part of her statement, she certainly couldn’t have cleared it ahead of time with Planned Parenthood. Stating that there is a right to life is, I’m quite sure, nowhere in their charter. Not that the Constitution even states that, but never mind.

And I’m pretty certain that everyone has a right to life, regardless of what the Constitution doesn’t say about it, except, perhaps, Dodgers fans, Bernie Sanders supporters (if you ask Hillary) and a certain recently terminated University of Missouri professor who looks suspiciously like the comedian Carrot Top.

And except, of course, for the not yet born. As Hillary Clinton might say – sorry kids, er, unborn fetal tissue clumps, you’re on your own.

Next, about that whole constitutional right to liberty. Well, there is plenty in the Constitution about what the government can do and also what it can’t do. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton and her cohorts seem pretty unconcerned about the part that explains what the federal government can’t do. You know, like the 10^th Amendment. As a matter of fact, there seems to be nothing that the government can’t do, if you ask her.  Now she wants the feds to get involved in school discipline.  Geesh!  Naturally, school kids are not taking this lying down.  Several school districts across the country have recently reported a growing Seventh Graders Matter movement in their midst.

All of this seems to suggest that she has a bit of a problem with the whole liberty concept, especially if you are, you know, a one-percenter. (Bill and Hillary Clinton excluded, of course.)

Lastly, there is the bit about the pursuit of happiness. Say what you want about the political left in the United States, but a happy bunch they aren’t. Never have we heard such whining. Never mind that there is no constitutional right to be happy. Really, I looked it up.

Honestly, with all of Bill’s fooling around, how happy can Hillary be? And if Hillary becomes president, how happy will the rest of us be?

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, was a bit of a sourpuss. And Dolly Madison, except for the snacks that you can get at most convenience stores, didn’t provide a lot of cheer either. Not only didn’t they believe happiness was a constitutional right, they didn’t even think it was a remote possibility.

Progressives don’t really believe that people should be happy either, but just in case, they want to make sure it’s the government that doles it out. One cannot, you know, be happy on one’s own.

On that note, should Clinton become president, we can expect her to create a new cabinet level department of Happiness, Resplendence and Cheer. That the initials of the new department will be HRC is a mere coincidence.

And nobody exudes happiness, resplendence and cheer more than Hillary Rodham Clinton. Just ask Bill.

But, you say, happiness isn’t guaranteed, just the pursuit thereof, according to Clinton. True, but again, it isn’t found anywhere in the Constitution. Besides, for Left it’s important that everybody be unhappy. You know, shared misery. We call it socialism or binge watching past seasons of The Bachelor.

Now we’ve got Clinton and Bernie Sanders telling us about the right to free healthcare, free college and “affordable” housing. Not even Jefferson included those “rights” in the Declaration of Independence. He did not say that a condo in Boca Raton was an unalienable right. And he certainly expected students at the University of Virginia to pay tuition, espeicially the social justice majors.

Unfortunately, Clinton can’t claim sole possession of constitutional illiteracy. GOP front-runner, Donald Trump, gets to weigh in as well. During a recent GOP debate, Trump claimed that his sister, a judge of some sort, signed the same bill that Justice Alito signed.

Now I’m really confused. Obama has spent the last seven years ignoring the other two branches of government. You know, the branches that are mentioned in the Constitution. Now Trump tells us that when it comes to the legislative and judicial branches, what’s really the diff?

Maybe he was referring to picking up a check. That’s something that judges probably do from time to time, but a real politician would never do. That’s what lobbyists are for.

It’s a little depressing when the two leading presidential candidates are about as familiar with the Constitution as they are with who won last year’s Oscar for sound editing.

No, it was not Thomas Jefferson.