Constitutional Issues

The Constitution of the United States is the greatest document ever written by man; it is a sacred text comparable to, if not greater than, the primary texts of the world's great religions. The Founders of this country and the authors of our Constitution were men of high historical, intellectual and scholarly acumen with a strong understanding of human and institutional behavior. In the debates leading up to and including the time at which the Constitution was written, our Founders wrote copiously on every aspect of the Constitution, all of which were left behind from which we can understand the logic and environment each sentence of the Constitution was reflecting.

As such, I am an advocate of the originalist school of Constitutional interpretation. I believe that the Founders left behind sufficient material from which we can determine their intent and the reasoning behind what was written into the Constitution. I do not believe that the Constitution is a "living document" that can be endlessly reinterpretated to the temporary whims of today and reinterpretated again for the whims of tomorrow. If that were the case, then an amendment process would be unnecessary and the Founders would not have provided for it. Therefore, the Constitution should be interpretated according to the intent of the Founders. An amendment process exists for pressing issues not addressed by the Constitution or the Founder's intent.

Based on the above framework, I believe the following:

- The Constitutional rights outlined in the Constitution are strictly limited to American citizens and are not applicable to non-citizens.

- Amendments to the Constitution should be strictly limited to issues of such great importance that, if the Constitution does not allow for it to be addressed, would threaten the integrity of the union or the harmony of society. Otherwise, lesser issues should be dealt with via the legislative process at a sub-Constitutional level. The Constitution is not, and must not ever be, the playground for petty special interests and the temporary whims and fads of the day.

- International treaties in opposition to the framework of the Constitution, the intent of the Founders, or the principles this nation were founded upon, should be rejected.

- The interpretation of laws in foreign countries or at the international level should have no weight and should not be considered by our courts when considering the interpretation of a law. Laws should be interpretated solely based upon other decisions made within the United States and within the framework of our Constitution.

- Federalism is one of the key principles outlined in the Constitution and the vast majority of issues should be addressed at the local or state level.

In light of all of this, there are errors within the Constitution that must be addressed. The following issues must be addressed:

1. There is a major contradiction within the Constitution that has been exploited to create a vast and counterproductive welfare state that shows no signs of slowing in terms of growth. Within the Preamble of the Constitution, which gives a general outline of the purpose of the Constitution and the duties of government, it states that the duty of the government is to "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare." The terms "provide" and "promote" are clearly used in a different context. Yet, later in the Constitution, specifically in Article 1, Section 8, the terms are discombobulated when the Constitution states that "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." (emphasis mine) I therefore recommend that the Constitution be amended to eliminate confusion by adding "promote the" immediately before "general Welfare."
2. Contrary to popular legal belief, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution does not grant birthright citizenship to any and all people born on American soil regardless of the citizenship status of that individual's parents. The common interpretation of Section 1 of the amendment focuses solely on the first nine words - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States," - while ignoring the qualification statement immediately following - "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." From this misinterpretation, activists have harnessed this amendment to grant citizenship to foreigners born on American soil. It was never meant to be interpretated this way and the individual who introduced the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, stated explicitly in his introductory remarks that, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." However, due to the confusion that has resulted from this misinterpretation and to ensure that this interpretation never becomes dominant again, it is necessary to amend the Constitution to make up for this fact. Therefore, I recommend a new amendment that changes the verbage of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, with the exception of persons born to foreigners, aliens, ambassadors, or foreign ministers, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
3. In Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, it states that when electoral and legislative seats are apportioned, the entire population of the state, excluding Indians not taxed, not just citizens but including all foreigners and others residing within the state borders, are included in the statistics used to determine how many are apportioned to that state. This is an outrage, and this amendment should either, in light of the above deficiency, be eliminated entirely or amended to state that only citizens count in the official numbers.
4. In Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution, it states that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." This has since been amended by the 17th Amendment, which changes the process of appointment from "chosen by the Legislature thereof" to "elected by the people thereof." Senators were never to have been elected by popular vote and the Founders were explicit in their reasoning as to why this had to be. Within the Federalist Papers, it is repeatedly mentioned that Senators are supposed be appointed by and representative of the views of the state legislatures, and act as a check on the elected lower House. As a result of the 17th Amendment, states no longer have any representation at the federal level, there are no checks on the House, and issues that should be solved at the local or state level are increasingly handled at the federal level at the expense of the rights of individual states. Therefore, I call for a new amendment making Section 1 of 17th Amendment null-and-void.
5. A new amendment should be added to the Constitution requiring that the federal budget be balanced every fiscal year.
6. Regarding the interpretation of the 1st Amendment, the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech does not apply to the destruction of physical objects, such the American flag. There are limits to the 1st Amendment just like there are limits to the 2nd.