(This post is part of the MyDD candidate series. I'm not affiliated with the Dodd campaign in any way.)

There is a powerful argument resonating in America today. It says that America is strong if we follow our laws. More specifically, it says America is at its best when we follow the Constitution, the bedrock of our government.

George Bush has made innumerable mistakes as President. He's gotten us involved in a never ending war in Iraq. He's rolled back environmental protections. He's undercut the economy, let the dollar sink to record lows, and harmed the middle class. But the offenses Bush has committed against the Constitution - signing statements, warrantless wiretapping, the suspension of habeas corpus - provoke the strongest reaction from Americans.

Bush expanded the power of the executive at the expense of the Constitution. In 2008, we need not only a President who will fight for progressive values - healthcare, the middle class, diplomacy-based foreign policy - but one who will actively roll back Bush's excesses. This is easier said than done. John Nichols, a writer for The Nation, examines the issue while arguing for impeachment:

On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any president has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don't give away the tools. They don't give them up. The only way we take tools out of that box is if we sanction George Bush and Dick Cheney now and say the next president cannot govern as these men have.

The only candidate from either party that I would trust to shrink executive power is one who makes the Constitution central to his or her arguments, as returning to the Constitution ensures all areas of Bush's expansion are addressed.

The Constitution lies at the heart of Chris Dodd's appeal. He is most known in this campaign for his work on issues in the Senate such as restoring habeas corpus and fighting against telecom immunity. Both of these issues are rooted in the Constitutional argument, and for this reason, I believe, they have been Dodd's most successful to date.

Dodd has also specifically addressed the Constitution at a couple points in his campaign. He makes the very argument that the Constitution protects the country:

We Americans understand it is not always the example of our force that keeps us safe - but rather the force of our example. We understand that our leaders do not swear to support and defend the Constitution or protect the country - that is a false choice.

Rather, we defend the Constitution--and the values it expresses--precisely to protect the country. America's moral authority isn't incidental to our security - it's the very foundation. Restoring our belief in this most fundamental of American principles is the challenge we face today.

He's made the Constitutional argument in other places as well (like the Republican YouTube debate).

I know Dodd has a huge respect for the Constitution, and I see how he has been making the Constitutional argument implicitly throughout his campaign. I personally trust him to take on Bush's expanded executive powers. I like how his message has evolved thus far, and I hope to see him use the Constitutional argument more explicitly as the campaigns start their final pushes towards the primary.

I want Dodd to use this argument because I feel it would win him support from a diverse set of American voters and because I feel it would make his message stronger. It would distinguish his candidacy from others in a crowded field. Most importantly, making the Constitutional argument explicit would tell voters in no uncertain terms that Chris Dodd will roll back Bush's expansion of executive power, and that is what I most want in a nominee.

Dodd staffers, if you're reading, please consider my request.