ON FORMING A MORE PERFECT UNION

 Posting 3

(with apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

It has been said that the Preamble of the United States Constitution contains six purposes or reasons for its existence (notwithstanding those who re-define or re-number these items). The first of these grand rationales is “to form a more perfect union.”

The original meaning of the word “perfect” was “complete” or “fully finished.” And in the historical context of the Constitution, this made sense. In the original Articles of Confederation, the power of the country resided at the state level, with a relatively weak central government. Indeed, it was likened to having 13 independent countries agreeing to work together. But skirmishes, such as the Shay’s Rebellion of 1786, quickly demonstrated that, without a strong central government to deal with internal conflicts, the very security of the nation could be in jeopardy. Thus came the drafting of the new United States Constitution, with its purpose of forming a more perfect, complete, fully finished union.

A fictional television president once said “sometimes we’re fifty states and sometimes we’re one country.” It is a grand thing for there to be such individuality. The ability of a state to govern its own affairs is important. One of our strengths in this nation lies in the individual character, culture, and complexion of each individual state. This writer does not pretend to know what the people of New York need or want, nor does the state of Texas reflect the aspirations of the people of Ohio. There is a degree of sovereignty in the states, a fact suggested in the tenth Amendment to the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” But as our new country was taking its first baby steps, it became important to be able to speak as one unified body. The Constitution lays this out.

There are inherent problems in the often-heard calls from states or parts of states to leave the Union or link up with another state to form a new state. This writer sympathizes with the cause, There is frequently a disparity, for example, between a liberal, metropolitan sector of the state (particularly where the state capital is located) and the largely rural, conservative areas composing the largest part of the geography, but the smaller share of the population. Measures and policies from centralized pockets of power often leave portions of a state feeling disenfranchised. And thus the yearning to break away.

But any move to disrupt these “united” States, no matter how noble it seems, would only work against the heart of a “more perfect union.” There was once, in our history, a sad, tragic war over this issue, so we would be wise to find other solutions. The founding fathers sought to establish a strong union, a more complete, a more perfect union than had existed before.

More modern interpreters of the Constitution take another view of this “more perfect union. They see it more as the application of continued activity toward being “more perfect”—in values, in ideas, in dreams, and in action. I believe there is a certain merit to this approach. Indeed, the history of our country shows that we have made changes over the years to write wrongs and better embody the ideas that we believe, toward the betterment of this nation.

Alas, most the writers espousing the moral application of “more perfect union” tend to view our country as a historically horrible wreck, a mess that requires the failures of the past to be avenged, the sins of the present to be subdued, and the potential misdeeds of the future pre-empted. Then, and only then, can one even begin to profess fidelity to this country. “Redemption” is frequently pushed aside by “revenge.”

The flaw in this movement is that it requires a “power-group” to determine which potential opinions are to be the plumbline with which to measure when our union is “more perfect.” There are many of these groups, some on one side of our current political divide and many more on the other side, who routinely protest and argue and suggest that anyone who actually disagrees with their viewpoint is the worst form of Precambrian protozoa. Such arguments do not affect our “more perfect union,” but they do create the impression that “we the people” are more divided than we are.

“In order to form a more perfect union” is one of the stated purposes of the Constitution of the United States. We see that in the fact that we are, in fact, United States, and not merely a loose collection of independent mini-sovereignties. Wyoming has a different identity than New Hampshire, and Florida is far apart from Alaska, but in the end, their citizens are citizens of one country—our country. And if there is improvement to be made, let it be made in improving what we already are: “a more perfect union.”

by Aplo