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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment