Hardly a day expires among the many platforms of our American communication system, then one does not hear the following opinion [view, judgment, appraisal, conviction, sentiment or belief] ...
"It's NOT Constitutional."
Hum ... my mentalis mastication [see post of October 3rd, 2025] process finally responds ... well,
"What IS Constitutional?"
There must be some interesting stories around this Constitutional thing declared to be in effect July 2, 1788! Wow, lots of stories here. My reference (scan of cover is shown)
So here goes ... as time and my fingers typing permit ... my goal would be to give some information regarding what is Constitutional! Using the comment sections which follows, the "Articles" and "Sections" of at least the beginning of each article will be identified.
Well, enough for this day. Here is the first statement.
"We The People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America."
P.S. Please note that this is actually how "defence" is spelled in 1788!
United States ... NOT! In 1783, a loose confederation of differing nationalities, differing regions, competing economic activities, strong tariff barriers and, deep suspicious concerns over any centralized control, were all afloat among the waters of the day. Jealously guarded ... individual rights! However, binding all was the intent to correct (rectify) the mistakes (wrongs) that were experienced by all. To AMEND was the heartbeat. Rectifying something wrong for the betterment of all! Amendments ... that's it. Let's call it amendments!
ReplyDeleteSome words about the words used in "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES". Clouds often surround the comprehension of the U.S. Constitution by its words and their meanings. Let's see now, "AMENDMENT" is one word most frequently applied to this document, yet a direct written copy given pp. 430-437 (this reference) uses the word "ARTICLE". Thought all items contained were called "AMENDMENTS"? Say what? "ARTICLES" -vs- "AMENDMENTS"? Here's my words. When first thinking about a correction to some issue being considered, it is called an "ADMENTMENT". Once put together and placed forward for a vote among all the folks involved, it is still called an "ADMENDMENT". However, once enough folks vote to accept the proposal as written it then becomes an "ARTICLE" as written as a part of the Constitution! "ADMENDMENT" = suggested idea !
ReplyDelete"ARTICLE" = accepted idea by vote !
As an "ARTICLE" it is written (becomes a part) of the Constitution.
Wow ... on to the "ARTICLES" as written.
Come on all you folks out there ... how would you have arranged all those many different settlements (colonies) into any form of a new (amended) government? Let's see now, there were the large settlements (Virginia = 747, 610 population) and, the small settlements (Delaware = 59, 094). It would take Maine (96,540), Vermont (85,539), Georgia (82,548), Rhode Island (68,825) and Delaware voting together just to about reach the number of voters (in Virginia) if each voter was counted! Dread of domination was the theme! All the votes should be by numbers of people and, not by the number of colonies! Say what! Get your swords and let's go for it!
ReplyDeleteThose summer months of June 1787 must have been pretty warm for all those delegates attending the convention described as a "committee of the whole". A "knock-down drag out" event as the folks from my Bluegrass State would have described. [Of course, KY was not in existence at this junction of time.] Anyway, altercations were about. The goals were identified in order to "Form", "Establish", Insure", "Provide", "Promote", and "Secure" ... "Liberty". The divisions of the delegates loomed so large that good old Ben Franklin called a halt and, suggested a "minister" (from the outside) be brought (to the inside) to pray for all. No way no how, came the decision! We have to prevent the public (the outside) from surmising the divisions of the convention! (on the inside)! At least this was the thinking given by the big "NO"! Anyhow, just past the first hundred years of this separation of "Church" and "Convention" (State not in existence yet)! ... a John Fiske in 1888 explained the real reason for this "NO" vote was that the delegation had no money. Hey ... show me the money! "No Pay" ... "No Pray"!
ReplyDeleteP.S. John Fiske, Chap. VIII, p. 284, 1888. In my history books, see post "Being Alive", Jan. 2, 2025.