SO AS TO INTRODUCE THE PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION

 Posting 2

(with apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

The Preamble to the United States Constitution, while carrying no force of law itself, sums up the intent of the framework that follows. I do not know if its words are still being memorized by school children, but I know of at least one children’s educational program that set the Preamble to a pretty catchy tune. And this writer, when reciting the section, will often find himself silently singing the song (much to the relief of those around him).

 The Preamble is one long sentence that lists the who, the what, and the whys. The “who” is “we the people of the United States.” The “what” is to "ordain and establish this constitution of the United States of America.” In between are the “whys:” seven purposes on the minds of the people for which they ordained and established this document.

“We the people of the United States.” This is extraordinary, for it is essentially saying that the Constitution is actually not owned by the government, but by the people. It was not a king, president, senator, or political operative who is responsible for this document, it is “we:” the collective whole. As such, it would seem that the government serves the people.

A story is told to the effect that, because of the writers did not know which states would ratify this new document, they deliberately left it open by referring to the “people of the United States.” It was ratified by 9 states on June 21, 1788, then by two more a little more than a month later. The final two states ratified the Constitution in 1789 and 1790 respectively. There was much debate and contention, which only demonstrates that honest human beings can disagree, yet still come to produce one of the most amazing documents in the history of the world. They “ordained and established this Constitution of the United States of America.”

Should you the reader interpret the previous statement as hyperbole and so be put off by it, consider that the Constitution of the United States has been used as a model in other countries, such as Australia. It has been in continuous use in this country since its ratification, laying out for us a frame of government that has endured over 230 years. As the oldest signer of the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin, said, “I consent Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best.”

Critics of the Constitution would do well to give Franklin’s words some thought. It is not a perfect document and, at times in our history, it has not always lived up to its purpose. But it may be the best we have. The Constitution, ordained and established by "we the people," deserves all due respect and consideration. And should you disagree; well, it is what we have.

 by Aplo

SO TO ESTABLISH A BRIEF WORD AS TO WHY WE ARE HERE

Posting 1

(with apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

If we met on the street one day and I said, “Let’s talk about the United States Constitution,” you likely would have thought me to be a fool, a madman, or a fringe member of a political party.  That reaction would be unfortunate in one sense and understandable in another. “Unfortunate” in that, indeed, extreme movements have interpreted this document in such a way as to gut it of its promise to secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Thus, sidestepping the topic may serve to avoid a prolonged battle with a perfect stranger, it would be wise to sidestep the topic. And the reaction is “understandable” in that it seems as through there is a plethora of uninformed thought and debate within society, so why add to the mess by exchanging mere opinions with someone who may not and certainly does not know what they are talking about? And besides, nobody just spontaneously wants to talk about the Constitution.

 But the Constitution, being the supreme law of the land, deserves more than a cursory glance or a cursed-upon diatribe. It lays out the very frame of our government and is the oldest written and codified national constitution still in effect. Those credentials alone should at least earn the U.S. Constitution a look or two.

 The history of the passage of the United States Constitution has filled many a history book, documentary film, and lecture hall presentations. It is a tale of drama, debate, and decisive deliberations. An internet search for “History of the Constitution” will yield many fruitful articles about this time. I will only mention two elements: the Articles of Confederation and the Federalist Papers.

 The Articles of Confederation was the first written constitutional document of the new-born nation. Ratified in 1781, the Articles of Confederation were the first to name this new country the “United States of America.” However, the Articles had some severe weaknesses and eventually a Convention was called to amend it. But in the process, a new, stronger Constitution was formulated and debated.

The other element during this time was the publication of the Federalist in 1787 (or 88.) The Federalist or the Federalist Papers was a series of 85 essays written anonymously by one “Publius” (in reality, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton) in order to promote the ratification of the Constitution. They have been widely regarded as an authoritative commentary on the Constitution and its meaning.

What is significant about these documents--apart from the diamond mine of historical revelations as to what our founding documents are all about? For one thing, they show that the founding of this country was not only incredible and world-changing, but complicated as well. For another, it reminds us that the founding fathers were not mindless automatons marching in lock-step with each other to form a new nation. They argued and reasoned and fought and sparred among themselves to formulate this “more perfect union.” Thus, the Constitution and its history are deeply fascinating.

However, this writer’s purpose is not so grand. I do not have the desire or drive to write an actual commentary on the Constitution. Smarter historians and the founders themselves have written volumes of explanations and expositions and theories on this document. I am not a lawyer and, while I enjoy history, I am not a historian. I assure you that I am (humbly speaking) quite intelligent and capable of reading the writings of the giants of history who have gone before, but I am not here to craft an authoritative treatise of my own. I am not a constitutional scholar.

Instead, I am a citizen who loves his country. So instead of leaving you with a commentary, I will simply comment. I will not share in-depth analysis, just sincere observations. 

In short, this is an ordinary man on the proverbial street, walking up to you and asking if you’d like to talk about the U.S. Constitution.

 by Aplo