Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio basically have the same foreign policy. Oh yes, they will differ on the schematics, but they are essential in how they want to pursue illegal wars.

The Clinton and Rubio foreign policy dictates that we must advocate for regime change everywhere in the world. We see that now in two prominent wars; the 2011 Libyan War when Qaddafi was overthrown with the help of U.S air power and in Syria where we have channeled hundreds, if not thousands,of tons of weapons into the conflict, and aim to overthrow the regime of Bashar Al-Assad.

Of course they disagree with the severity of how much force we have, but both agree on a no-fly zone over Syria where we risk war with Russia. Clinton still wants to equip and train 'moderate' rebels, despite the failure of the program under President Obama.

Rubio, is just a warmonger without the facade of advocating for peace. The man wants boots on the ground in Libya, Syria, Nigeria, and Iraq. ISIS is losing a lot of ground right now, due to regional forces taking the fight to them, but Rubio would expand the U.S's involvement to a degree not seen since the start of the War on Terror.

The no-fly zone is a recipe for war. It calls for shooting down Russian planes in airspace where they already fly; one which could lead to a confrontation that can quickly spiral into a regional war between two nuclear powers.

And none of this is legal under the Constitution. We've been waging undeclared wars for the past 60 years and most, with few exceptions, have been failures. Only Congress has the power to wage war, but they have been allowing for their role to be continued to be usurped by the presidency. Unsurprisingly, Rubio sent a letter urging President Obama to attack ISIS and had no mention of Congressional authority, which is a constitutional requirement for war.

And the rest of the field isn't great either. Ted Cruz, the most non-interventionist of the bunch left, wants to carpet bomb the Middle East until we figure out if we can make the sand glow. John Kasich wants to punch the Russians in the nose and boots on the ground.

Donald Trump, the front-runner, is the worst of them all. He wants to kill the families of terrorists, violating international law and the Geneva Convention.He calls for bombing the shit out of ISIS and oil fields, which experts warn would be disastrous. He advocates for sucking up to the Russians and calls Putin a good guy and a strong leader. We don't need to go to war with the Russians, but we don't need to let them do whatever they want. Then again, he's the guy who wants to build a wall and expects Mexico to pay for it.

The bottom line is that both parties are full of hawks who want to bomb the world.

You have one of two choices. Vote for a candidate who wants endless war or vote for a candidate who will have a more restrained foreign policy. John Quincy Adams told us that America "does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy,” but we have been doing that for the past 20 years since the end of the Cold War. America must return to this, instead:

“She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

Because in the end, it means that we will continue to sacrifice our freedoms in the guise of fighting foreign monsters abroad. We will continue to shred our constitutional rights in the name of security, to fight an enemy which will not give up so easily and remains far away. In pursuing war, we are destroying the very basis of our rights.

James Madison summed it up best.

"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."