The First Democratic Presidential Debate

     On Tuesday, October 13, I watched the first Democratic presidential debate for the 2016 election on CNN.  I find it frustrating when critics refuse to watch the Republican debate because they are convinced that the opposing viewpoints are so unwarranted that they refuse to give them a chance to state their case. Realizing that Republicans are guilty of the same behavior, I decided to set aside hypocrisy and actually listen to what these people had to say. I must admit that coming from a conservative view, it was hard to sit and listen to the candidates without becoming increasingly exasperated.

The Candidates: Vastly different from the Republican debates in terms of number of candidates, the majority of democratic candidates were able to have substantial air time with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders having the most.
     Lincoln Chafee: The former Rhode Island Governor and Senator was mostly ignored during this debate with probably the least amount of air time of all the candidates. When he did get a chance to speak, it didn't go well. Moderator Anderson Cooper pressed him with this question; "...You've attacked Secretary Clinton for being too close to Wall Street banks. In 1999, you voted for the very bill that made banks bigger." Chafee then replied with probably one of the worst answers possible; "The Glass Steagall was my very first vote. I had just arrived. My dad had died in office, I was appointed to office, it was my very first vote." Cooper continued, "Are you saying you didn't know what you were voting for?" Chafee's excuses continued, "I just arrived at Senate- I think we get some takeovers, and that was my very first vote- it was 90 to 5- it was the-" Cooper broke in, "...What does that say about you that were casting a vote for something you weren't really sure about?" Defeated, Chafee replied, "I think you're being a little rough." The Governor's response did nothing to help him, and probably generated even more questions about his party loyalty (he was previously both Republican and Independent). 
     Jim Webb: The former senator from Virginia and secretary of the Navy was probably the only candidate who actually made some good points in my opinion, but they were overshadowed by his frustration with speak time constraints; "Anderson, can I come into the discussion at some point?", "I've been trying to get into this conversation for about ten minutes,", "Anderson, I need to jump in," and "Bernie, say my name so I can get into this," and "This hasn't been equal time." Those, unfortunately for him were the most memorable things he said.
     Martin O'Malley: The former Governor of Maryland was the surprise of the debate for me. He came with a plan, and though he still had some trouble distinguishing himself from both Sanders and Clinton, his closing statement alone, as much as I disagreed with it, might be enough to gain more followers.
     Hillary Clinton: The supposed front-runner showed her debating skills against the less-practiced Sanders and was the most polished candidate. She was extremely fortunate that when the current issue about her emails came up, Sanders essentially rescued her by saying he was tired of hearing about her emails. She had an answer for most all the other questions.
     Bernie Sanders: The self-proclaimed socialist tried to establish himself as the right choice, but struggled to separate himself from Clinton. The loudest cheers arose when he bashed the discussion of Clinton's emails. This may have helped him in the short term, but overall it will hurt him as he gave Clinton an easy escape route to the question.

     Winner: Hillary Clinton; her debating skills were much better than everyone else's and she appeared to be the only candidate who has any idea of how foreign policy works.
     Loser: Lincoln Chafee; his terrible answer will seal his fate. I expect he will drop out of the race fairly soon.
     Conclusion: Overall, I don't think much will change in the polls. The candidates mostly maintained what they had. If I were to choose someone who may have gained followers, I'd probably say O'Malley, but he is still far behind Clinton and Sanders.

     From the Conservative point of view: One of the two most maddening parts of watching this debate was when O'Malley used his closing statement to bash the Republicans: "On this stage you didn't hear anyone denigrate women, you didn't hear anyone make racist comments about new immigrants, you didn't hear anyone speak ill of anyone because of their religious belief." The faulty reasoning behind this statement was extremely frustrating to me. Referring to illegal immigrants as criminals is not an attack on their race. It is an attack on the fact that they are doing something illegal (breaking the law) which is what criminals do. Calling out Muslim terrorists is not speaking ill of someone because of their religious beliefs, it's calling out terrorists because they're terrorists, it doesn't matter what god they believe in. Saying that Republicans denigrate women because of their pro-life stance is an inaccurate supposition. Supporting the unborn does not mean waging a war on women; it is waging a war on murder.
     The other part I hated was when Clinton said that Republicans are for "big government" because they want to limit women's right to choose (an abortion). She doesn't understand that there should be laws on the federal level to protect the lives of both the born and unborn.

A Convention of States Versus A Constitutional Convention

    Many in today’s culture often confuse the Convention of States with a Constitutional Convention. Article V of the Constitution gives the right for the states to call a convention in order to propose and ratify amendments “...on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments..." A Constitutional Convention is when, if all the current states agree, the entire Constitution is thrown out and a new one is written. Many people are against a Convention of States because they mistakenly fear that the Constitution would be re-written, but that is a Constitutional Convention and not a Convention of States. There is a major difference between adding amendments and rewriting the Constitution.

     Article V states that the states can call a “convention in order to propose and ratify,” and that they become “…part of this Constitution when Ratified...” this means that new amendments are added to the current Constitution, not a new one. If people are worried that the Convention delegates will take advantage and re-write the Constitution somehow, they need only realize that three-fourths of the states still have to agree to ratify these new amendments.

     The quotations for the remainder of this paper, unless otherwise specified, are from the Convention of States website. One difference between a Convention of States and a Constitutional Convention is that “A Convention of States requires two-thirds of the states to call, whereas a Constitutional Convention requires unanimous consent of the states that are going to be bound to it.” So a Convention of States is an easier way to positively affect the entire country because it is easier to call. A Constitutional Convention must have the entire nation agree to negate the Constitution itself, and that is far more unlikely.  In addition, many states may be controlled by the liberal minorities’ unwillingness to cooperate. The majority of people in the country are then forced to submit to abuse of the Constitution without hope of change.

     “At a Convention of States, amendments are passed by a simple majority versus at a Constitutional Convention, which is passed unanimously by the states that are present.”  In order to create a new Constitutional document the entire nation must agree on its contents. This will, as stated above, give the minority power over the majority. At a Convention of States, the majority rules, much like today’s voting system.  

     “At a Convention of States amendments are passed and ratified by the states individually versus a Constitutional Convention, which is passed and ratified by the states as a whole entire document.” If at a Convention of States, a certain number of amendments are proposed, they are passed individually, so certain amendments may be passed while others are not. In contrast, at a Constitutional Convention, the entire document must be agreed upon unanimously, so if one state disagrees, the new Constitution is thrown out, or changes are made to satisfy all the states present.   

     “At a Convention of States, amendments are ratified by three quarters of the states and bind all the states versus a Constitutional Convention, which only binds states that ratify it.” At a Convention of States, to ratify the proposed amendments, three-fourths of the states must agree on them, if they do, the new amendments are added to the current Constitution and become law for the entire nation. At a Constitutional Convention, amendments are only law to the states that ratified it. This would divide the country into two different sides, each with their own Constitutional foundation for which to base their laws.

     These differences are very important to the foundation of our federal law. Therefore, the document that is supposed to be the “supreme law of the land” should be correctly understood by the people who have to follow it.

     Many of the current Constitution’s amendments and clauses have been manipulated and stretched to new limits that our Founding Fathers never intended.  Voters may place blame on the President and the White House officials, but there are many others at fault. The Supreme Court, who is supposed to interpret the laws of Congress and rule whether they are Constitutional or not, have given themselves more power than ever before. They have single handedly changed laws they claimed to be unconstitutional, when, in truth, there was nothing written in the Constitution on the subject of the law in question. When this occurred they should have rejected the case and left it to the states, but instead, they embraced it has an opportunity to expand their power. As a result, they have created new laws themselves, which contradicts the very principle of self-government. Only legislators elected by the people can make laws.  

     In the Supreme Court’s decision in Troxel v. Granville, the Court struck down a Washington state law, granting visitation rights to any third party. The Court justified their decision saying that parents have a Constitutional right to allow and disallow visitations.  Justice Scalia wrote a dissent, saying that the Court should never have taken the case because parental rights are not a Constitutional issue since parental rights are never mentioned in the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court has been honoring current cultural trends and personal feelings more than the positional mandate they swore to uphold.  They have obliterated moral integrity by denying the state legislatures the power to make laws that are based on the values of the majority of its citizens.

     The Congress however, is more to blame than both of these groups. They have not fulfilled their positional mandate as specified in the Constitution; they have allowed the President to trample them and applauded him for doing it. They have not done their duty to remove the corrupted Judges on the Supreme Court, or to remove the President from office when he overstepped his bounds. The Federal Government has changed the laws so much; that to save what’s left of our country, we must do something dramatic, for we need dramatic change.

     The Convention of States is a legal “back door” for the states to take back some of the power that the Federal Government has usurped. It enables the states to add, nullify, or clarify certain parts of the Constitution that the government has perverted. "Fortunately, our founders knew the federal government might one day become too large and too powerful and they specifically inserted a mechanism that gives states a lawful and orderly mechanism to restrain a runaway federal government; it's Article V of the Constitution,"(Bill Taylor, a legislator and Convention of States leader for South Carolina)"When the framers agreed on Sept. 15, 1787, to add a provision in Article V for the states to amend the Constitution, they in effect were telegraphing a message to us in 2013, a message to us showing us the way back inside the fence of the Constitution." (Bob Menges, a Constitutional law professor and the state director of the South Carolina Convention of States Project). The Convention of States is a Constitutionally supported way to bring our nation back to how it was intended to be.

     The objective of a Constitutional Convention is to create a new document to govern our country. Some would argue that for truly dramatic change we should throw out the Constitution and write a new one. This is unnecessary. There is nothing wrong with our Constitution, it was written by men who were far wiser than any of our leaders today. The problem is the perverted interpretations of it by today's government. They have read into the laws with lenses muddied by their personal beliefs and agendas. If we want to embrace the vision of our Founding Fathers, then we must look through their lenses. They wisely put the Convention of States into the Constitution because they knew what might happen one day. Americans today don't understand what submitting to another country is like. They have been "spoiled" by their freedoms and take them for granted. Because of this they cannot discern the symptoms of the disease called tyranny. Our Founding Fathers had to literally fight for this country's creation, and we need to see what they saw and think how they thought if we are going to preserve this nation. We don't need a new Constitution; we don't necessarily need new leaders; we need to hold our government accountable for their actions. The best way to accomplish this is through a Convention of States. We can clarify the laws and add new amendments to hold government officials in check.

(For more information on the Convention of States, click the link on the side of the page.)

Exquisite Cinnamon Roll Company V. United States

     For our last day of Constitutional Law class, we performed a moot court. The issue before the Court was whether the United States Congress could pass a law, under the Commerce Clause, standardizing the making, selling, and baking of cinnamon rolls. The United States won in the District Court, the Cinnamon Shop appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, who also sided with the United States. The shop appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court

The Attorney (my sister Emily) for the Cinnamon Roll Shop

The attorney brought some samples (that she baked herself)

The Court listens to Justice Sotomayor (A student who uses Skype)

The Cinnamon Shop attorney shares some rolls with the United States attorney

Justice Ginsburg (me) snores, as the Chief Justice tries not to lose it

The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision, that the Cinnamon Roll Company's case was valid and that Congress had unconstitutionally enacted the law. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. JUDGES: ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO joined. SOTOMAYOR, J. filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J. BREYER, J. and KAGAN, J. joined.

The Second Amendment’s “Right to Bear Arms” is an Individual Right

     The second amendment of the Constitution states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." There has been vast speculation whether the "right to bear arms" is an individual right, or if it was intended for only members of the militia. There is also the argument made that the "right to bear arms" only applies to specific weapons. When this amendment was written, our Founding Fathers had just finished the war with England for independence. They knew the benefit of the people owning firearms; Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Notice he said "no free man" not just members of the militia. The second amendment was meant as an individual right for the people.

     The second amendment does not just apply to the militia. In the majority decision of District of Columbia V. Heller, Justice Scalia found that the right to bear arms was an individual right. Scalia wrote that “requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause,” but that the “prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause.” He found that the wording “The right of the people…” was used again in the first amendment and in the fourth amendment, and that when used in these amendments the wording “unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights…” and that “nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right.” Justice Scalia’s opinion is consistent with that of our Founding Fathers. 

     George Mason said; "To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." He said this with respect that all governments, unless hindered by the people, would become tyrannical and that disarming the people would be the first step toward tyranny. Thomas Jefferson agreed saying; "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." Our Founding Fathers intended for all the people to be armed and willing to fight to keep their freedom, they never thought that the people would be so misled that they would be doing the tyrannical government's work by disarming themselves.

     Some Americans have become afraid of guns due to the mass shootings taking place across the country. They are scared of political unrest in their own country and do not know who to trust. American citizens who think this way need only look at the pattern of historical tyrants: Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Idi Amin established gun control only a few years before committing mass executions. Nations such as Turkey, China, Guatemala, and Cambodia also exterminated masses of people after establishing gun control. It is estimated that approximately fifty-six million total victims lost their lives at the hands of their own governments in the last century on the heels of strengthened gun control laws. As recently as 2009, North Korea, under the leadership of Kim Jong -il, strengthened its gun laws in order to keep control of society as his health deteriorated and as he prepared to transfer his leadership to his son. 

     Many in today's culture are worried that with guns, crime rates will climb, shootings will increase, and people will suffer. Ironically these people are “shooting themselves in the foot". Thomas Jefferson said: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Meaning that if guns are outlawed, crimes will only increase, because law abiding citizens will no longer carry guns, and criminals, not obeying the laws anyway, will attack with more confidence. "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery," (Thomas Jefferson) is a statement that all Americans should wholeheartedly embrace.

       The second amendment is not outdated. Today, there is debate whether or not the second amendment applies to modern weapons. Some would argue that it only applies to muskets, the weapon used by our Founding Fathers; others argue that only assault weapons should be outlawed.  The idea that only muskets should be legal is based upon the belief that only the weapons that were around when the second amendment was written should be allowed. This is faulty reasoning, as we interpret the rest of the Constitution to take on modern meaning. For instance, the United States recognizes, and must protect, religions that did not exist when the Constitution was written. The fourth amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons and papers; there is little question that this now applies to cell-phones and computers. There is no basis for this idea; it is a desperate attempt by anti-gun activists to outlaw guns.

     The term “assault weapon” is subjective. In the hands of law-breakers anything can be an assault weapon. Should we outlaw kitchen knives and rolling pins because someone was attacked with one? George Washington made his opinion quite clear: “A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." According to this statement, the people should have sufficient arms to that of any who might try to limit their independence. If our government uses “assault weapons”, then we, as protectors of our own independence, should also be allowed to carry them. Many liberals argue that since our nation has such a strong military, the people need not carry guns; this is exactly what our Founding Fathers were afraid of. If we limit our rights based on the might of the government, then we have already given into tyranny. Benjamin Franklin strongly voiced his opinion on this; “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

     The Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" is an individual right reserved for the people. Arguments made that say otherwise can be refuted by the Supreme Court's majority decision in District of Columbia V. Heller, and by the original intent of our Founding Fathers. The right to bear arms is for all guns, including “assault weapons” as the Founders intended. Americans must fight for this freedom, or be subjected to a tyrannical government. We should have the courage to defend the freedoms that our Founding Fathers provided. 

Field Trip to the Capital

    My Constitutional Law class had an "end of year" field trip to the state capital. 

The lower half of the walking stick being held by the statue George Washington was broken off during the civil war when Union Soldiers beat the statue until it broke

We sat in on three appellate cases at the Supreme Court and were able to tour the capital building, seeing both the Senate and House of Representatives.

The Supreme Court lobby

The Supreme Court Bench 

(Nil Ultra on the wall is Latin and means "none higher")

My sister, Dad and I behind the Court Bench

Me and a monument near the Capital

The House of Representatives is made up of 124 members

The Senate consists of 46 members

The class on the steps of the Supreme Court

President Obama Has Committed Impeachable Offenses

    In the United States’ Constitution it is written: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”(Article II, Section 4) President Obama has not only committed innumerable “misdemeanors”, but has also defied the Constitution on countless occasions. Whether by not fulfilling his positional mandate or by ignoring the limitations placed on his office, President Obama has qualified for impeachment.

      President Obama has not “faithfully executed” the laws of Congress. In Article II, it is stated “...he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…” (Section 3) Critics have observed a commonality in President Obama’s decisions: ignoring, changing, or refusing to enforce key provisions in laws dealing with domestic policy. He has refused to send back the majority of illegal immigrants crossing our borders, in spite of Congress’s efforts to do so. When he does send anyone back, he sends the “criminal” ones, when in fact, they are all criminals. 

     As he attempts to enact a new executive action on immigration, he seems primed to expand presidential power once again. In doing so, he’ll set new precedents that future Presidents can use as reasoning for even more expansive action. "It's both perplexing and alarming that the president has decided to move forward with executive actions on immigration that he has said on numerous occasions that he didn't have the Constitutional power to take."(United States Representative Bob Goodlatte) On March 28, 2011, Obama said, "With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive orders, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed…Congress passes the law, the executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws…There are enough laws on the books that are very clear in terms of how we enforce our immigration system that for me to, simply through executive order, ignore these Constitutional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.” On February 14, 2013, Obama said, "I'm not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed by Congress..."His views are vastly different now, in announcing his executive actions, Obama said he was well within his legal authority to take them.

     President Obama has ignored the limitations placed on his office by the Constitution. In his most recent State of the Union address, President Obama clearly said that he would respond to Congressional blockage by finding measures that could be used in the absence of congressional action. "America does not stand still – and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do." In March 2008, Senator Barack Obama stated: “I taught Constitutional Law for ten years; I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” Academic, legal, and policy experts however, have made it clear that Obama has done little to return Bush’s expansion of executive power and instead, has made a few additions himself. “The consensus is that he’s not the disrupter in terms of Presidential power that he purported to be,” says Mitchel Sollenberger, a political scientist at the University of Michigan. “Instead, he’s largely continued consolidating and strengthening it."In May of 2013, a Washington Post article revealed that Fox News reporter James Rosen was investigated by the Department of Justice, which confiscated his phone records and emails, which not only violated the fourth clause of the first amendment, but also the fourth amendment.

     Another example of an overreaching of power is when after seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status; the IRS in 2010 compiled a "be on the lookout" list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list contained words such as "Tea Party," "Patriots," and "Israel"; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May of last year. The Government Reform Committee released a report that finds President Barack Obama and other leading Democrats had encouraged the IRS to investigate conservative groups seeking tax exempt status. Obama called conservative groups with tax-exempt status "shadowy" entities with "innocuous" and "benign-sounding" names. Obama also urged a "fix" to a decision which allowed these groups to "pose" as non-profit groups. 

     Members of the Democratic Party have rejected the idea that Obama has expanded presidential power. They point out that the President is issuing executive orders at the lowest rate of any president in the past century. This is faulty reasoning as a single executive order can be extremely destructive, or meaningless. “The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to write the laws and the executive to enforce them." (United States Representative Trey Gowdy) "We don’t pass suggestions. We don’t pass ideas. We pass laws. The President's dangerous search for expanded powers appears to be endless." (Former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor) "These are not lawful actions," Representative Doug Lamborn said. "These are the power-hungry actions of a president who refuses to work with Congress."Without Congressional intervention, this problem of overreach will continue to grow through future presidencies. 

     There is no Constitutional provision that permits executive orders. The term "executive power" found in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, refers to the title of President as the executive. He is instructed by the declaration, "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed" found in Article II, Section 3. The White House has used theses reasonings to justify the many executive orders our President has enacted. Democrats have defended the President, saying that Republicans want a "lazy President," and a "lazy Congress." That simply isn't the case, Republicans don’t want a "lazy president," they want a Constitutional one.

     President Obama has not adhered to the Constitution. He has exceeded his power and his position. Our President has committed countless misdemeanors and abused his power as President. We not only have the right to impeach him, we have a duty to impeach him. As citizens of the United States, we have a responsibility to hold our leaders accountable to the law. President Obama has not fulfilled his responsibilities as President and qualifies for impeachment.