PERIL, AS WE APPROACH THE ARTICLES

  Posting 8

(With apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

Having overviewed the elements within the Preamble to the United States Constitution, we now undertake the task of summarizing its Articles proper. Yet such an undertaking carries with it a certain degree of peril, peril that has existed since the genesis of our country, a peril that shall be addressed shortly.

The basics of the Constitution are relatively straightforward: seven articles dealing with the set up and role of Congress, the Presidency, the Courts, and the States, plus the process for amendments, general matters, and the approval of the document. This is followed by 27 Amendments, the first ten of which are the Bill of Rights.

To say that the United States Constitution is unique among world legal documents would be a bit of an understatement. Its identity of government defies much of common thought:

o   It is, at once, a federal government and a collaboration of state governments, simultaneously balancing the rights of these smaller units with the functioning of one national entity.

o   It is a democracy, but only in the general sense that the people can govern themselves. In reality, the United States of America is a representative Republic, in that these people can select and change the leaders, who then represent their interests.

o   It is a government of checks and balances. The three branches of government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) are perpetually engaged in a dance of sorts in their roles. The Legislature passes a law, but the Executive (the President) can approve or reject it. If the President rejects the law, the Legislature can override that veto. The Judicial branch can rule on laws and actions taken by the President and Congress, but the President can appoint and the Congress must approve those justices.

So it would seem that each branch of government checks the power of the others, balancing said power so that no one branch can become too strong. It almost seems to this writer that the founding fathers may have wanted to head off the problems inherent in the expression, “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In short, it seems like one of the fundamental strengths of the system of government laid out in the United States Constitution is its somewhat cynical view of human nature and its mechanism to keep these natural cravings for power under control.

To be certain, our founding fathers often engaged in spirited debate—some would say raucous arguments—over the shape of this government. This writer will leave it to historians and scholars to explain, clarify, vilify, or defend the assertions of these sessions. In the end of it all, the people—we the People—did ordain and establish this Constitution of he United States of America, a document that has stood for over 200 years.

But the peril did not end at our country’s founding. Indeed, the arguments have taken a more somber turn, as modern minds and modern movements would seek to dismiss the foundational principles of this document. This is not always the work of nefarious “villains,” lurking in the shadows determined to destroy our society. No, indeed; but the determination to diminish and deter our founding principles frequently comes from the popular and the admired, from the influencers whose opinions on any subject are considered expert, from even the very representatives of our government, who, knowing the grand Constitution, nevertheless would call for its dismantling. And there are those whose zeal to “save” this great country propel them to ignore the damage they do to the Constitution. The bad arguments, the over-simplified and under-applied rhetoric transcend political affiliation.

To blazes with peril! Let us continue to talk about the Constitution, if for no other reason than to remind ourselves of its splendidness in its totality or in its components.

by Aplo 

ABOUT SECURING THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY

 Posting 7

(With apologies to J. Duzarf)

To the readers:

Most rational people would agree that liberty is a good thing. Dictators, despots, and tyrants may routinely work against liberty, but in their own perverse way, they actually reserve to themselves what they deny to others, sort of a self-centered liberty which frees them to do what they want (such as restricting the liberty of others).

But in the preamble of the United States Constitution, one of the purposes of the document is to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Let us lay aside any nefarious ideas of liberty—such as those propagated through social media—and agree that, at the very least, liberty might very well be found in those rights and freedoms found in our laws (particularly the Bill of Rights).

It must also be made clear that liberties, freedoms, and rights are only as good as their source. A tyrannical dictatorship will not secure many, if any, blessings of liberty, let alone those that would extend freedom in time. “Self” as the basis of liberty has its own weakness, in that it fosters personal ideas which may or may not work for the benefit of our Union, and fails to reflect anyone’s preferences but its own.

This writer humbly believes that the source of our rights and liberties is stated in the Declaration of Independence, in which we read that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” (emphasis added). While our government may work on the application of these blessings of liberty, their Source is transcendent to humanity.

As “we the people” acknowledge this Source,  we are far better equipped to secure these blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity.
 

by Aplo

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