Over the years I believe that this country has drifted farther and farther away from the ideals and intent that were so clearly and carefully written in to the Constitution. Liberty and freedom have been seriously curtailed, property rights trampled on, the power of the Federal branch has grown exponentially and States rights reduced at the same rate. What happened? What is missing in the Constitution that let this happen?

The founding fathers clearly knew that people in power tend to want to keep and expand their power. This is why they put terms in for elected officials and used language that severely curtailed (in theory) the power of the central government. In order to make sure the elected officials power was kept in check a safety valve was put in place. When the people believe that the elected branches have trampled on the Constitution there is an appeals process that ends at the Supreme Court Of The United States. These are the men that are entrusted with keeping the elected officials in line with the Constitution in both letter and intent. It is this crucial piece of the puzzle that has been the single biggest failing of the founding fathers. They thought they had the answer in that the life time appointments would give these men the freedom and leeway and courage to read the Constitution and tell the elected branches no.

What the founding fathers failed to consider is that a time would come when people would elect officials with no integrity that would appoint judges solely based on their politics and with little regard to their ability read the Constitution. Today judges are picked based on their ability to miss-interpret the Constitution and twist it to fit their own political and social beliefs. When these judges are put in place, the very language that was supposed to ensure their impartiality instead permits them to be partial with complete impunity. They are never held accountable for their failure to uphold the intent of the Constitution and have little reason to make sure that justice is blind and based only on the facts. This needs to change.

There is a way to remove members of the Supreme Court. They can be impeached. The rules for impeachment are written primarily to remove an elected official for doing an illegal or treasonus act. It is very hard to apply the term “illegal” to a judge who is twisting words and using past bad-precedence cases to come to a political conclusion. So, can we apply treason to their actions? It’s worth some thought. Doing a job poorly would never be considered treason for the average elected official. Only a malicious act that compromised the safety of the United States would warrant that. The Supreme Court however has a very specific charge to preserve the intent of the Constitution and to do so to the letter and intent of the authors of the Constitution. Failing to do this job to the very best of one’s ability, failing to follow the letter and intent of the Constitution could be considered sedition, an attempt to illegally overthrow the government. In order to apply this, we need to review individual judges opinions and identify those which clearly violate the letter and intent of the Constitutions. (Note I wrote opinions, not decisions. The idea is to remove judges that aren’t able to keep their feelings and politics from influencing their interpretations of the Constitution, not remove the entire court) 

 

In order to make this work though, we the people need to elect Congressman and Senators that believe in the Constitution of the United States as it was written. People that believe the correct way to change a part of the Constitution is to propose and ratify an amendment. (It’s not impossible, it’s been done 27 times so far.) When we the people have done this and people of integrity hold a clear majority, then we can correct the problems in the SCOTUS and hold them accountable to uphold the Constitution.

 

Read YOUR Constitution. Understand it. Ask any candidate what their position is on property and states rights. Ask them to read it and see if they know the difference between ‘promote the common welfare’ and provide for the common welfare’. It’s up to you. Do YOU believe in the Constitution?