Ignorance of the Constitution Negatively Affects the United States

     The United States Constitution is the most important document in the history of our nation and yet many people still do not know what it says or means. This ignorance is detrimental to the citizens and also to the country as a whole. How can a nation’s citizens hold their government accountable if they do not know the standard at which to hold it? There are two schools of thought when it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution, and one is empowered more with ignorance than facts. As citizens of the United States, we have a responsibility to read and study the document that gives us our rights. Thomas Jefferson said, “The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution” (LibertyLinks).
The United States Constitution was ratified in 1788. The document was meant to be used as detailed instructions for the country’s operations. It lists the duties of the various offices and the limitations on what the government can do. The Bill of Rights, which was ratified in 1791, listed specific rights given to the people, and later amendments continued to build upon it (Munson). This document was written over the course of years; a document that has had so much influence on our nation and is supposed to be the “Supreme law of the land” should be treasured by American citizens (Jefferson). When it comes to the Constitution, there are two leading views on how it should be interpreted, original intent and the living Constitution.
The view held by most conservatives is the “original intent” interpretation. This view embraces the belief that the correct way to interpret the Constitution is to read it through the eyes of the Founding Fathers. Only by understanding why the words were written can they be adapted to modern day meaning. The Founding Fathers spent countless hours debating and thinking about what to put in the Constitution. Years of oppression by King George III had built up a passion inside of them for justice. The War for Independence lasted eight years and cost over 4,000 lives; the words they wrote should not be taken lightly. What is written in the document is a direct result from the injustices they had faced. They suffered massacres, rigged trials, and unwarranted searches and seizures (Jefferson). The Founders put numerous safeguards in the Constitution to make sure that the government would not be able to gain complete power. By understanding Founders’ reasoning, we can understand how to apply their ideas and beliefs to our government today.
     There is little question that the Constitution can be currently applied; it is to “what extent” where the questions and disagreements begin to arise. For example, the 4th Amendment states that citizens have the right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…” (Jefferson). By adapting this Amendment to modern day meaning by using original intent, there is no question that this applies to cell phones and computers. The basis for this Amendment was for people to keep their belongings and documents private; by extending that right to people’s computers and cell phones, we still fulfill the meaning intended by the Founding Fathers.
     If citizens of the United States do not have a basic understanding of the historic background or biographic knowledge of the writers of the Constitution, they are far more likely to misinterpret the meaning of important statements and rights that are given. For example, the 9th Amendment states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” (Jefferson). This means that there are other rights not listed in the Constitution that the people of the United States have. There is much debate over these unnamed rights. Looking at the context of the Bill of Rights, the 9th Amendment is followed immediately by the 10th which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” (Jefferson). By researching and studying the Constitution, it becomes clear that these two amendments are meant to go together. The 9th Amendment states that there are rights not listed; the 10th Amendment states that it’s up to the states to decide what those rights are. If only the 9th Amendment is read, then anything is available to become a “right” just because the Federal government says so; when it should be up to the states and the people to decide what they are and are not. It is from the ignorance of the general population and many of its leaders that the Federal government has been able to usurp power from the states. If this is allowed to continue, it is only a matter of time before the Federal government has the same power that King George III had in 1775.
     One of the most common arguments against using original intent to interpret the Constitution is the claim that the Constitution must “evolve” with the times. This interpretation is most commonly referred to as the “living Constitution”. This view holds to the belief that the Constitution is a “living” document that changes with the times. This position is held by many members of the Democratic Party including four Supreme Court Justices. Proponents of this view suggest that limiting the Constitution to what the Founders intended makes it worthless. They make the argument that using original intent also means that you must limit the meaning to the resources that were available at the time of the writing. They argue that by holding to the original meaning, the 2nd Amendment’s right to bear arms would only apply to muskets and other weapons that were in use at the time of the writing. There is no basis for this attack; it is simply an attempt to rationalize their viewpoint. By having knowledge of the historic background of the document and understanding the meaning of the words, it becomes obvious that there is only one way to correctly interpret the Constitution.
The belief that the Constitution’s meaning can be altered with the ever-changing morals of the times causes many more issues than it solves. If the “Supreme law of the land” is subjected to the interpretation that its meaning can change, why even have it? If we interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we want, what purpose does the Constitution serve? Thomas Jefferson attacked this viewpoint, saying “The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please” (“US Constitution…”). The only way the Constitution can be of any use is if its meaning never changes. If the democratic republic of the United States is to endure, the document that holds it accountable must be above the changing ideals of man. In order to have a lawful and orderly nation there must be a timeless standard. “A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless,” said the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (Alexander). The “Living Constitution” interpretation is simply a way for the Judiciary branch to side-step the correct view of the Constitution and to implement their own ideas into the political system. American citizens who are ignorant of the meaning of the Constitution are vulnerable to being misled into following and electing officials who are not instituting the Constitution correctly.
Understanding the Constitution is one of the most important things an American citizen can do. It is so important that people understand the document that gives them their rights, that if they cannot understand it on their own they should seek out help. As James Madison said, “It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood;” (Madison). By having an enlightened citizenry, the United States will not only operate efficiently, but it will also operate Constitutionally.

Sources:

Alexander, Mark, Better Obstruction than Destruction. The Patriot Post, 17 Feb. 2016, www.patriotpost.us/alexander/40740. Accessed 6 October 2016.

Jefferson, Thomas, The Declaration of Independence. The National Archives,
     http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html. Accessed 8 Oct. 2016

Jefferson, Thomas, Text of the Constitution of the United States. Trident Technical College, pub. 4 March. 1789,  www,ttc-mt-iii.com. Accessed 8 October 2016.

What the Founding Fathers said about the Second Amendment. Liberty
Links, 25 March, 2013, www.macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/libertylinks/2013/03/25/what-the-founding-fathers-said-about-the-second-amendment/. Accessed 6 October 2016.

Madison, James, The Federalist Papers. Trident Technical College, pub 27 Feb. 1788.
www.ttc-mt.iii.com/iii/encore/record/C__Rb1064737__Sthe%20federalist%20papers__Orightresult__U__X7?lang=eng&suite=gold. Accessed 9 Oct. 2016

Munson, Holly, Basic Facts about the Bill of Rights. National Constitution Center, 22   May 2013, www. blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/05/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-the-bill-of-rights/. Accessed 6 October 2016.

The US Constitution: ‘A Mere Thing of Wax’. Tea Party Tribune, 17 January. 2013,
    www.teapartytribune.com/2013/01/17/the-u-s-constitution-a-mere-thing-of-wax/. Accessed 9 Oct. 2016

A Case for and a Case against each GOP Presidential Candidate: Ben Carson

     Ben Carson's outsider approach to the Presidency started off well. His rise in the polls created a feeling of optimism and possibility for his campaign. After the Paris attacks, however, his lack of experience in foreign policy and strong leadership skills became a glaring issue, and he fell drastically in the polls. As he barely hangs on now, drifting between fourth and fifth in popularity, his chance at the Presidency is all but gone. Here are his pros and cons.    

     Case For: Many people believe Ben Carson's greatest attribute is his honesty and integrity. He has gained a reputation for being an honest and morally upright man who has spent his life helping and saving others. He also has a common sense, gentle approach on many issues and doesn't complicate them like other politicians. His early rise in the polls showed how many people related to him. Unlike the other outsider, Donald Trump, Carson took the high road many times during debates and tried to keep his campaign clean.
     Case Against: Ben Carson's lack of experience in the political field has served as a disadvantage for his campaign. His understanding on current issues is far below that of his fellow candidates. Two of Carson's advisers even said that he is in over his head in foreign policy. When pressed, he could not name one of our allies helping in the fight against ISIS. He also claimed that China was involved in Syria; a claim that has no evidence.
     Most of the other GOP candidates all have a deep understanding of how the political system works, while Carson most likely had very little knowledge on the subject before he began running. He also does not have the preferred dynamic persona of Commander in Chief. Many fear he would give America a weak and naive form of foreign policy.
     Ben Carson's assertion of humble integrity was challenged when his claim of a full-ride West Point scholarship was proven to be a lie. He also exaggerated accounts of surgeries that were less-than successful in his autobiography. Followers and prospective followers need to consider that if one's greatest attributes are his honesty and integrity, and then he is proven to have been deceitful, his reputation and campaign are at stake and rightly so.
     Summary: Ben Carson's rise and fall in the polls have echoed my thoughts about him. He started off strong, but global and national issues revealed his lack of experience in multiple fields. Ben Carson is not the right choice for President. Many of the American people have come to this conclusion; it's about time he did as well.

A Case for and a Case against each GOP Presidential Candidate: Marco Rubio

     When I watched the first GOP debate, I was impressed with Marco Rubio. By far, he looked the most "Presidential" of all the candidates. He had quick, thoughtful answers and was the most "debate ready" of all the candidates. I was also intrigued by the recent endorsements of South Carolina's leading politicians: Governor Nikki Haley and Senator Tim Scott; both of whom are very popular in my state.       

     Case For: For the most part, Marco Rubio is a very conservative candidate. He has a strong stance against abortion, stating: "I believe a human being, an unborn child, has a right to live irrespective of the circumstances by which they were conceived." He also said that every executive order President Obama has made in regard to limiting gun rights will be gone on his first day in office, thus demonstrating his strong support for our Second Amendment rights. He has also been deemed the most "electable" candidate. Rubio has a better record of consistency than that of Donald Trump, who has changed his positions many times. He is not as far right as fellow Senator Ted Cruz, which turns off the more liberal Republicans. His campaign claims that he is the candidate who can win in November.
     Case Against: Perhaps the greatest complaint the more conservative Republicans have with Marco Rubio is his "liquid" stance on immigration. When he ran for Senate in 2010, he had stated that he strongly opposed amnesty and the legalization of illegal immigrants. He said, "I will never support -never have and never will- any effort to grant blanket, legalization, amnesty to folks who have entered or stayed in this country illegally." In 2013, however, Rubio co-authored the "Gang of Eight" bill that would have created a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. He denies his reversal of opinion insisting that the bill did not grant "blanket" amnesty because it included fines. He has challenged this criticism with the other GOP candidates during the debates notably calling Ted Cruz a liar when Cruz spoke about his record. This possible rationalization is not something that should be overlooked. It's impossible to know which Rubio we would get should he become President: one against amnesty or one for it.
     Summary:  Marco Rubio's immigration record aside, he is one of the most conservative candidates running for president. His views on abortion and the Second Amendment should be commended. For these reasons he is my second choice. Whether or not he can win in November is yet to be seen.

A Case for and a Case against each GOP Presidential Candidate: Ted Cruz

     When Texas Senator Ted Cruz started his campaign, he immediately caught my attention. Politicians who genuinely care about authentic Constitutional interpretation are hard to come by. So when it became evident that the Constitution was the driving force behind his political stance, I was intrigued. As I learned more about Ted Cruz, I also discovered he had a strong faith in God and was a staunch supporter of freedom of religion. These two are rare in most politicians today. As I write this, he is now leading in multiple polls. So here are his pros and cons.    

     Case For:  One of Ted Cruz's finest qualities is his strong support of the Constitution and his willingness to defend it; saying: "My touchstone for every question is the Constitution." This trait is hard to find in our Congress today. It has been a long time since we had a president who shares such a passion for the supreme law of the land. This stands in stark contrast to other politicians who are far more focused on what is popular, in accumulating votes, and who lack a solid foundation to their beliefs. When the Constitution, as the Founders intended, is a politician's primary measuring rod, things will change and eventually anchor for the better. Cruz definitely has a better grasp on the original intent of the Constitution than the other candidates.
     Cruz's belief in God and the Bible is also a powerful trait as it gives him a moral standard higher than any man can create. Though no man is perfect and all make mistakes, his faith gives him a trustworthy direction to follow. He is also not afraid of saying the truth, even when it faces much backlash; as was evident in several debates. When he illuminated Marco Rubio's immigration record, he was called a liar. The same occurred when he revealed Donald Trump's support for Planned Parenthood. It turned out that both of these accusations were true.
     Cruz also battled Obamacare to the extent that many Republican senators began to dislike his fervor. Lindsey Graham said earlier this week that he disliked Cruz for his lack of respect for the "traditions" of the Senate. If you have to turn your back on the "traditions" of the Senate in order to fulfill your Constitutional duties, then there is a problem with those traditions. He also battled the Marco Rubio-led Gang of Eight bill that would have given amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants. This bill had gained the endorsement of President Obama.
     Case against:  One of Ted Cruz's supposed drawbacks is his apparent lack of support from Congress. As a Senator, one would assume that his colleagues would offer support to his campaign. Donald Trump claims Cruz is a "nasty guy" who hasn't gotten one endorsement. This "drawback" can't be true since Cruz has received endorsements from 20 house Republicans. The Republican members of Congress who despise him are mostly members of the establishment who are upset with him for his loyalty to the Constitution and his unwillingness to play Washington's games.
     Cruz's detractors have questioned his integrity. They doubt his faithfulness to his promises and the sincerity of his Christian beliefs. This of course is something that could be said about every Presidential candidate. Many also point to the supposed sabotage of Ben Carson's campaign. This is a very exaggerated claim. When Carson's campaign released news that he would be returning home to Florida, Cruz's campaign relayed the information to make it more widespread. They did not, however, relay the information sent out by Carson's campaign that he would be continuing on. Cruz has since apologized for the misunderstanding. Carson accepted his apology.
     Summary:  Of all the candidates, Cruz has been the most consistent and has held the strongest to Constitutional principles. HIs loyalty to the Constitution makes him a good candidate for President. His moral standard led by his belief in God and the Bible are traits that we could use in the leader of this nation. It is my opinion that he is the best option for the American people.

A Case for and a Case against each GOP Presidential Candidate: Donald Trump

     As the political circus comes to my state of South Carolina, I have decided to look at a case for and a case against each GOP Presidential candidate starting with the frontrunner. When Donald Trump first announced his participation, I for one thought he would never gain any traction. I was wrong. He quickly jumped out with a lead in several national polls. Even then I thought that the polls had to be mistaken. I was wrong. When the actual votes came in Iowa, I wasn't surprised when Trump finished second and could've been third; but when New Hampshire gave him a landslide, I was somewhat surprised. It wasn't until then that I actually began to take him seriously as a possible Republican Nominee. But he, like every candidate, has his pros and cons.

     Case For: Everyone knows what a successful businessman Donald Trump is, and quite honestly we could use someone who knows how the economy works to be in charge of a country with over 18 trillion dollars in debt. He also has the remarkable trait of not caring what people think of what he says. This seemed to help him gain popularity early on in his run. His comments about illegal immigration and his proposed ban on Muslims gave the impression that he wouldn't be controlled by political correctness and the politics in Washington. While offensive to some, others found his bluntness refreshing.
     Case Against: Although he claims never to have gone bankrupt, his businesses have filed for bankruptcy four times (which is the same thing). So though his business sense may be savvy, it's not foolproof, and rather than taking responsibility for his failure, he justified himself by besmirching the lenders and suggesting that they deserved it, saying in a debate: "These lenders aren't babies. These are total killers. These are not nice sweet little people." I wonder if China (one of America's largest lenders) would qualify as one of these "killers". So while he has the ability to improve our economy; he also has the ability to destroy it.
     As for caring little about what people think, that too could hurt us when it comes to working with Congress and also when working with other countries. With the endorsement of Vladimir Putin and some in the United Kingdom petitioning for Trump's national ban, one can only wonder what an America led by Trump would look like. Donald Trump clearly lacks understanding of the Constitution. He has all of these plans; Muslim ban, building a wall, and sending illegals back, but not once has he mentioned working with Congress. So logically one can only imagine he plans on using executive orders. One of the biggest problems Conservatives have with President Obama is his disregard for the original intent of the Constitution and his executive orders that defy it, his scorn for Congress, and his seemingly unlimited power. In this instance, there is no difference between our current President and Donald Trump. If one believes Obama to be a devil, that individual may be trading one for another. Trump's Muslim registry idea resembles Nazi Germany's with the Jews.
     A major concern of conservative Christians is Trump's apparent lack of a Biblical moral standard in spite of claiming to be a practicing Christian. Even those who are not Christian find his extramarital affairs, ownership of casinos, ruthless business practices, foul language, and lack of respect for individuals' feelings evidence of a defective moral compass.
     Summary: I give Donald Trump a lot of credit for his boldness and his disregard for political correctness, but in my opinion the risk vs. reward in his case is far too great for a country hanging in a delicate balance. I agree with his stance on immigration and I like what he could bring to the economy, but if he is willing to bend some of our Constitutional rights, it is only a matter of time before we lose others, either through him or through the precedent he will set for future leaders of our nation.

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.)