Bernie Sanders for U.S. President

I hoped to not have to argue about definitions or partisan subjects, however, I must say that I do not agree with the definition the Con gave for the job description of the President of the United States. In the United States constitution, Article 2 and all the sections therein establish the executive branch, give the powers of the president, and tell other details associated with the executive branch. Most importantly, in Article 2 of the constitution, we can find the two most important roles of the president: Chief Executive, and Commander in Chief. These things meaning: that as Commander in Chief, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons; and, as Chief Executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons. Despite this, it is true, that in the oath sworn by the president at his inauguration in January, the incoming president swears to "the best of my (his or her) Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. " The entire basis of the constitution was based on change and checks and balances. The United States constitution was written after the people living in America declared their independence from Great Britain as individual colonies, and was put together to establish a government for the people living here. The Founding Fathers did the best they could with their combined knowledge and experience to create a long-lasting, functioning system. However, there are things that would change that the framers simply could not predict. That is why they worked together to ammend the constitution as a solid, yet flexible document describing the details of our democratic-republic government. By swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," Senators, Congressmen/women, and the President all swear by oath to not just do these things for the literal constitution, but also the ideals the constitution was founded on. My entire counter-argument is based on this: The Constitution is subject to change for the people who reside under it. For example, the Third Amendment of the Bil of Rights found in the Constitution states, "No Solder shall, in time of peace be quatered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. " I can get two supporting arguments from this single amendment. 1) It even says it is subject to change The section that states, ". .but in a manner to be prescribed by law" clearly shows that this amendment is subject to change, by the fact that it is flexible in allowing soldiers to stake out places with a "prescribed law" 2) This is an issue of the past The frequency of soldiers forcibly staying on the private property of American citizens is hardly at all to never in this day and age, and acts as an example of how the framers did the best they could with a document describing the rules of a government for the future. This is another obvious example that the constitution is flexible to change to better suit the people of the United States. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that every instance of the Constitution can or should be changed. For example, the first ammendment is one that will never be suppressed as long as the United States is a country. The entire document is a solid rock that this country rests on, and that rock may have to be chipped in certain places to adequately hold up this nation-- take off or modify too many places on the rock, and the big melting pot will fall over. Perhaps the above evidence doesn't seem sufficient enough to support my rebuttals. So I present to you my next and last counter-argument: Amendment XI, from the Bill of Rights, found in the United States Constitution, which says, "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects or any Foreign State. " Now, the Con, along with many others, may be questioning the relevence of this amendment is my rebuttals. Therefore, I will explain. The 11th amendment is the first amendment added to the Constitution that adds on and changes a part of Article 3 (the article on the Judicial branch). In specific, Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, is the exact proponent that was modified by the 11th amendment added to the Constitution. Due to the fact that I am running out of characters, I will not type it out here, but that evidence can be found here [1]. In conclusion of my rebuttals, I have elaborated upon the duties of the President and Senators and shown the solidness and flexibility of the Consitution. I have giver counter-evidence that Bernie Sanders- with his suggestion for an ammendment that may conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. the FEC-- does not go against the constitution. This evidence proving that there is no reaon that Senator Bernie Sanders should not be the next president of the United States. [1] . http://www.annenbergclassroom.org......;