violations of the Constitution: little vs. large

It's amazing to see some conservatives get bent out of shape about prospective violations of the Constitution-- most notably, in allegations about Obama's citizenship [but not McCain's] (Article II, Section 1) and Hillary voting for a cost of living raise for the Secretary of State's office (Article I, Section 6).

The former has no merit from what I can tell-- and the latter fits the letter of the law, but not its spirit (a cost of living raise is no [true] raise at all).

In any case, the Constitution is violated routinely-- on issues ranging from wealth redistribution to our efforts in Iraq to medical marijuana-- and the same people say nothing. To strain at gnats and miss the Constitutional camels is a pharisaical approach to vital issues.

Chuck Baldwin makes similar points in a recent essay entitled Selective Constitutionalism...

Many conservatives seem to be obsessed with this controversy, calling it a "constitutional crisis." The fact is, however, we have been in a "constitutional crisis" for years! The problem is, most conservatives only get worked up over a potential abridgement of constitutional government when it serves their partisan political purposes. In other words, when a Democrat appears guilty of constitutional conflict, conservatives "go ballistic," but when Republicans are equally culpable of constitutional conflict, they yawn with utter indifference....

The real constitutional crisis is the manner in which the American people have, for years, allowed civil magistrates from both major parties to routinely violate their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States...