The constitution specifically states the government has the power and the duty to provide for the common defense. The Head of State is to be the Commander in Chief and his main responsibility is to keep the country safe from outside aggressors. Today, the Commander in Chief insists on encouraging our enemies to come into our country illegally by refusing to protect our boarders. Today the Commander in Chief facilitates those who have sworn to destroy us and he alienates our allies. The Commander in Chief is violating his sworn duty.
The United States Constitution was written the way it was written to assure the government would remain limited and undivided. It was written to be an instrument for the people to restrain the government and not the government to restrain the people. Even people who proclaim to believe in the constitution are calling for the government to restrain individuals. A gallop poll said that two-thirds of Americans were dissatisfied with the way income and wealth is distributed in the United States. How income should be distributed comes directly from the writings and teachings of Karl Marx. Marx said it was society’s responsibility to see to it that income and wealth were distributed based on needs. The Constitution was written to allow individuals to determine how much wealth and income they have. Are we a nation of self-reliant people or people reliant on the government? The premise of income inequality is a false premise anyway. Wealth and income in total are not finite but they are infinite. The American principle was that income was based on the efforts and capabilities of the individual and the government, in a free society, should be irrelevant and unconcerned.
And now we see where one of our Supreme Court Justices said that the decisions of the court should be made on how an individual justice believes the law should read and not based on the rule of law or the United States Constitution. If there's one decision Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could overturn from the past decade, it'd be the 2010 case that opened the floodgates to virtually unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns.
"I think our system is being polluted by money," the 81-year-old jurist told students at Georgetown University Law Center, referring to the Citizens United case, adding the situation is made worse because it affects state and local judges who run for election in 39 states.
Ginsburg was one of four justices who dissented against the majority opinion in Citizens United.
Though she said the case would be one she'd like to overturn, Ginsburg told the Georgetown students Wednesday she's optimistic "sensible restrictions" on campaign financing will one day be in place.
This law could only be constitutionally overturned if the freedom of speech clause in the first amendment was eliminated via a constitutional amendment. Under our form of government, law is not based on how we wish it to be, that is a system of arbitrary law; a totalitarian state.