The federal government is so completely out of control with the constitution that when you look at the various phases of what it is doing, it would be nice if we could break them into three separate branches. But it is more much now than ever before. And they dont check at much as they used to and of course sometimes it is never even contemplated, this massive Administrative State. And so its all quite important. And the goal is to not only talk about how to revive the constitution but to inform people with above public is supposed to look like and how the constitution is supposed to function and to move some of the decisionmaking and the centralized situation and you write about the 17th amendment. Because it serves not the Public Interest but the governing mastermind of the disciples. Not because they championed democracy or the individual but because they knew it would be one of several important mechanisms for unraveling the constitution. That would be absolute nonsense and crazy. And if you look at the constitution it is very complex. They have limited enumerated powers with three branches, each is supposed to be working with each other and checking with each other. And of course you have the states where all of the rest of the powers of the success where all the individual sovereignty list. So this idea of the direct elections is what frame is intended for in a candidate for the house of representatives to make this clear. They debated this but the senate was supposed to look like they went back and forth with different models. But when it came to the senate, they made quite clear that you could not have the direct election of senators without creating this national government. And they even made this case to the states when they went to the ratification of the constitution and they said that the senate is made up of individuals chosen by the state legislature and you will have a role in this among other things. So the federalists use the senate among other things and the nature of the senate to persuade the antifederalists to support the constitution. And if we had had the direct election of senators, there would not be an original constitution and the states would not have ratified it. Furthermore, who the senators who do they represent . Its the most bizarre body that man has ever created. We get that and that balanced the large states and the small states. But the direct election of senators, where they voted for obamacare and they fought obamacare in court in the state legislature, trying to protect it from obamacare and its very bizarre. The senate today is really an odd concept. So the purpose of the senate is to empower the federal lawmaking process and not just have another ability to vote. You agree with this . No, i think in the case of harry reid and the democrat and the senate, they abuse whatever the rules are. And they were using the filibuster to block this like no one else in American History. They complained to the republicans not concerning this quickly enough and not pushing it fast enough. And the very people that abuse the filibuster and how they choose to do it, they have now illuminated it for purposes of judicial nominees as well as executive officials. So today this is a very odd thing. Because rather than protect the institution, as the framers intended, you actually have majority of the senate doing everything they can to support the executive branch in any way that they can, even if it means diminishing its own authority and this would be crazy. As a matter of fact, it wouldve been crazy during franklin roosevelt. Mark and he tried to stop this with liberal ideologues and his agenda. And the individual who fought it the hardest was a former speaker of the house and the democrats controlled congress and they wouldnt go along. And so you have to have people of integrity and virtue in what ever level of government that we are talking about. One other issue that has come up is whether or not it is to senators. Wyoming, less than a Million People. In fact that is exactly the point. The constitution would never have been ratified if only the big states, virginia and massachusetts and pennsylvania to name three, could have as many senators as they wanted. And this goes back to the point of the house of representatives and part of the direct elections and the states based upon their populations and that is how you determine this. And the senate was supposed to be considered in many ways, and i hate to shock people, but it worked out that way. Him of the other individuals protect private property to grant the states authority to amend the constitution and grant them to check congress and to protect the vote. And so what you mean by that . About three this of a state legislator. And today, it takes justice to amend us and this and they are doing it all the time. Refusing to uphold and with a particular law, changing the law like obamacare. Constantly amending the constitution and Congress Passed obamacare and doddfrank and they have power on Administrative State and three fifths of the state legislature should be able to directly amend the constitution in the Supreme Court is a Constitutional Convention in the same with the president and his cabinet. And then on order for that to happen we would have to allow the states to do that, which is one of the things i proposed in my book. In your first book you write that the Supreme Court, in particular, talked about the final judgment with all policy issues regarding the constitutional limitation in the legitimate roles of congress and the president and the Broad Authority in the states of the people the. I dont know why they are challenging what i am writing before Woodrow Wilson and they make clear what they are objectives. And they didnt like the ideas of checks and balances and sovereignty and they did everything that they could at the time to undermine him. So we have the Supreme Court now in the decision of anything and look at what happened with all of these issues. We all said russell flee and how is Justice Kennedy going to go and that one in this one. There are nine individual human beings and they are of blood and skin and bone and brain matter and they are imperfect. The idea that a great republican , 310 Million People, has to await the decision of how that will work to determining a particularly social issue and it is absurd and the idea that there is no recourse whatsoever. It is absurd. And nobody talked about any of the state ratifying conventions that support such a judicial oligarchy. There would be no constitution as if that was what it created an accident. So one of my amendments, it actually addresses it because of my view 12 years is enough and its gotten way too political and the other is that three fifths of the state legislature can override Supreme Court decision. And why should there not be recourse beyond justice with a body of politics and the people of the United States, if they can raise the resources and drive the agenda in the super majority. It is not that simple to say now. You are wrong. No, youre wrong. Why would that be so hard . I dont think it would be. When you talk about your amendment. Are you calling for a Constitutional Convention . No, there can be no Constitutional Convention. I am calling for what article five calls for. The convention of the state. It is not constitutional that everything is up for grabs. And they are making an application to congress and having a convention and its clear during the debates of the Constitutional Convention and it is also clear that it was written by hamilton and two thirds of the state basically calls for a meeting and rather than themselves have the power to propose the amendment, two thirds of the state send their delegates to this convention and then they come up and then have to be sent to all of the individual is to ratify. Three fourths of the states each ratify it. Are these amendments doable . Gosh, i hope so. And if not, Something Like them. Because otherwise i think we are doomed and i think that it is becoming increasingly more centralized agency increased and i dont need to panic people in what i consider the powers of the federal government. And it is really disgusting and its preposterous. And i didnt create article five. But the frame is there to address a centralized government and that is where we are concerned about it. He proposed it and it was unanimously part of this at the Constitutional Convention. So i hope at some point that the more we can discuss it, the better off we will be. We have come such a long wait six months. And 100 state delegates met from 32 or 34 different states to begin to talk about this. And what the authorities of the delegates would be and they sign it. I mean, we need to understand from my perspective that we are in a part of this and its topdown rather than bottom up. And its going to get worse. So let us use the constitution to restore the republic. In your book from 2012. The unmaking of america. You talk about utopianism. One is that . Well, it is a whole book. That being said, is that if you listen and you really understand the left, they are going to create these magnificent type of systems. We will improve the health care and surrender your liberty and private property in our Financial System and give us more of power to control it and we will end poverty. Just give us more of your wealth and we will have this warm poverty on and on and what doesnt work it wont work because its impossible. Its impossible for a few masterminds in washington dc, no matter how many there are to know what 310 Million People now in terms of their own lives and what motivates them and benefits them and so forth. But that being said, the problem is that it becomes increasingly more centralized. You write that utopianism is a rational, whether it ignores or attempts to control the complexity of the individual and his nature and mankind generally. Utopianism has a quality that is intolerant of diversity and uniqueness and debate and etc. Where utopianism purpose requires a singular focus and there can be no slowing or obstructing the society. Thats right, you can see the attack on free speech and what they can see on College Campuses and a few of these ideas and its really its quite troublesome. But really it always requires the federal government to have more power over the individual. You can just listen to obama and its not just obama but the Republican Leadership as well and obama in particular, and excuse me. I have the flu. And there is a utopianism and it never failed. When obamacare failed, what is the problem . Not enough money . Not enough power . And so it can never fail even though it is a complete failure and an impossibility. And so this is a promise over the constitution that we have in fighting it. These folks are always talking about what should be better than reality and what they have done and it is our responsibility to turn and do a better job of explaining things. Your book prior to that, you talk about this and how do you define it . Welcome i wanted to write a book and you need to address liberalism. And theres an enormous amount of research that we are trying to put together. And this includes social democracy and liberalism and and i would like to reject aristotle and use the word the kind that encapsulates all of it. And so i can remember when i used that word and i remember being asked what is state is immune . And its essentially those who believe in the power of central government. And less so the power of the individual and with lower levels of governing. And it has its purpose, a good purpose. Which is part of Civil Society and those of us who knows know the history and so forth, we reject that idea. But you can see today the state has provided this and what have you. The utopian state is devouring Civil Society. Rather than the government existing in a limited form to ensure that justice occurs without legal justice before the law, taking care of basic necessities Like National security and the border and so forth, we have a federal government that is ubiquitous and its hard to think of areas of our life for the federal government does not revolve around things in some way. Should liberty and security, the liberty amendment, should they be red . Well, i would hope so. And wonders after the other. Liberty and tyranny a conservative manifesto, you know, it just took off and as i say, it is sort of a restatement of conservatism as is ameritopia the unmaking of america. Because i was really sick and tired of the Republican Party in leadership and john mccain and others who were really mushing up the message and didnt stand for a lot and for not explaining the principles of conservatives and juxtaposing it. So i felt it was time for that. And ameritopia the unmaking of america takes a much deeper political approach to philosophy. It takes a bigger look at the left. And so the utopian stateism is an example. It is more part of this as i try to point out, ameritopia the unmaking of america is a perfect work of paradise and it juxtaposes that to john roth and charles the montesquieu and the framers of the constitution and we can really see the genius and the brilliance and liberty in the blueprint of this. And im not at the point that their philosophy is nothing new. It is part of many of the philosophers in a fictional or nonfictional way. The power of the state and it is all i am doing. Now whos your favorite philosopher . That is impossible. Well, a lot in my view. He really laid out the most cohesive comprehensive case and the nature of man and an enormous influence on the founding fathers. He was the most red philosopher with John Rockwell and montesquieu, and we had both of them in the book of ameritopia the unmaking of america. He was one of the most widely read philosophers on the constitutional time. And there were three separate branches of government and maybe most predominantly proposed it. And so i guess i would say that people consider them philosophers and there are many others and im sure i cant remember them all. And not one particular, but altogether. And the framings were well read at the time and before their time and they were well informed about the enlightenment and what had taken place before history. You look at the declaration of independence and its heavenly from this own government. And these are others who should be the focus of our educational systems and public discussion. An i fear that there is a small percentage of populations that dont know much about this. So i have tried to do my best. Who is on the other side . The philosophers are on the other side. And i think when people talk about this with the aggressive is a more democratic socialism or liberalism, maybe they dont realize how much they take from this in one form or another and that couldve been done in that way, with them being socialists, i think the progressives this notion of redistributing it an eagle. As im, these are all marxist. That being said, he talked about this withering away of the state and the problem is that we cant figure out how that works in the state becomes oppressive and allpowerful. Once the state is under the control of the proletarian, in its object that will include the following tenants. Abolition of property and application of all Public Purposes in a heavy progressive of the income tax and centralization of the property of all emigrants and rebels and centralization of credit in the means of communication, equal liability and the combination of Free Education for all children in Public Schools. Okay, so i think we have covered this in six or seven ways. And its the communist manifesto and those are his 10 points. And i think that this is something that we have adopted. So the socalled progressive era are these people that have been part of it. And you cannot have a utopian status and support increasingly centralized government and the notion of individual liberties and state authority support our constitution. It is just not possible. This is why we are in a postconstitutional period. An introductory is centralized. Heaven knows what it will be tomorrow. But the fact of the matter is what these people are pushing the envelope left and have been pushing is not within our constitutional framework and so you cannot be, i want the liberals out there listening to understand that you cannot be a hardline liberal in this way and to support the constitution. Weve talked about status and utopianism and men in black and original as im and you say this is him talking. And it seeks to promote the rule of law by imparting a continuous and predictable meaning and many go on to write that they object to the judiciary power in the name of remedying this with justice. A couple points. First of all, the idea that the Supreme Courts, then its a wonderful institution is simply preposterous. And its that good shot decision and it is the Supreme Court and from my perspective it is the issue that is in some cases genocidal. Because these are imperfect human beings and that has been my point and will continue to be my point and i have no problem with a court system because it is implied and where the courts of the justices understand the limitations and there has to be recourse to this with constant National Situations and that is why i propose that the state legislature, three fifths of them, have the power to override this Supreme Court decision and the dred scott decision as well as an example. And so there is a lot in there that i can address in the whole notion of the judiciary today is having the final word and somebody has to have a final word at some point. I get that. But when the final word is