The Constitution doesn’t need to be re-written, it needs to be re-read!
The Constitution of the United States is an inspired document that has proven to be remarkably effective, resilient and adaptable for more than two centuries of existence. It protects individual rights and guarantees personal freedom. It was established by exceptionally visionary leaders who analyzed all forms of government, who built upon decades of knowledge and understanding of the world to craft a timeless document upon which future generations could depend. The amendments to the constitution keep the document as pertinent today and as timeless as the founders intended.
Some people believe the Constitution is outdated and should be ignored. Others believe it is merely a guideline that should be interpreted broadly to align with current social norms. Unelected judges are undermining the basic principles of the Constitution by creating new “constitutional rights” from the bench or ignoring clearly defined limits on government power.
I am a constitutional originalist and I believe the Constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding at the time it was adopted or amended. I reject the notion that the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted based on the context of the current times. Throughout the history of the United States, there have been legitimate reasons to amend the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution prescribes the procedures for amendment. These procedures prevent a vocal minority or powerful elites from changing the Constitution, by requiring the overwhelming will of the people to amend it. Instead of issuing regulatory, executive or judicial fiats, those who wish to change the Constitution should invest the time and energy to educate and persuade the American people. The beauty of the Constitution is that it limits the power of government and provides checks and balances so that no one party or one body of government can make drastic sweeping changes without the consent of the people. When we follow the Constitution, government’s powers are limited and the people retain their freedom.
In 1976, when I enlisted in the Army, I swore allegiance to the United States and took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. I consider this oath as a sacred obligation. I am a strict Constitutionalist. I believe the proper role of a judge is to determine whether a contested law is consistent with the Constitution. I believe we need more Supreme Court Justices who are guardians of the Constitution and promote equal protection under the law instead of trying to legislate from the bench.
As your representative in Congress, I will continue to support and defend the Constitution by fighting against any attempts to pass legislation or policies which are counter to the principles established in the Constitution. I will fight against activist judges who attempt to legislate from the bench. I will also vigorously resist any attempt to pack the supreme court by adding more than nine justices.