T Nation

Essay I Wrote On U.S. Constitution

Intention and Alteration of the United States Constitution
If one wishes to know the full purpose served by the United States Constitution, one only has to reference the Declaration of Independence, a document written prior to the Constitution that holds certain truths to be self-evident, the truths that are the basis for the meaning and purpose of the United States Constitution. It is this very reasoning that purports the United States Constitution disseminates from the absolute truths that the Declaration of Independence sets forth by Thomas Jefferson. The unquestionable truths that the Declaration of Independence reveals are analogous to the unquestionable truth, according to Thomas Jefferson and other writers of the Constitution, that a Creator exists to endow man with these unalienable rights, among them being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To deny the Creator is to deny the foundation of the United States Constitution, as He is the foundation upon which these truths exist.
Taking directly from the written source of these absolute truths, ??to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness? (Declaration). The purpose of the Constitution is rooted in the last portion of this proclamation, that the government shall lay its foundation based on such principles, the principles of self-evident truth and the facilitation of man towards such goal. Any impedance for man to live by these truths would be deemed unconstitutional.
The most notable weakness of the United States Constitution is not a particular article or section that is written within the document, but what is left out. The fore fathers of this nation that signed into effect the Constitution of the United States based much of what they wrote on self-evident truths with a foundation in a Creator, a being higher than man with whom these truths would be considered absolute; however, save for ??in the year of our Lord, 1787,? there is no mention of God within the pages of the Constitution (Ismellarat). In the preamble of the Constitution, the people shall establish a government to secure the blessings of liberty, but with no mention of the source of these blessings, except of course if you find the United States Constitution a continuation of the Declaration of Independence, the court systems over the decades have misconstrued not the purpose of the Constitution, but the very source from which these blessings originate.
To follow through with my current topic, the only change that would be sensible would be the more intricate inclusion of our Lord within the pages of the Constitution. Not to further saturate this article with explicit philosophical theories, an individual?s intrinsic morality, or method of ethical self-regulation, is often derived from a source of faith, a faith in a higher being and teachings that follow the religion of this Creator. But more importantly, the self-evident truths that inundate this article would lose validity, and the foundation of the Constitution, a foundation that would be a wonderful vaccine for our current moral epidemic, would lose legitimacy if one denies the absolute truths laid forth in the Declaration. Legally, this would put to suspect the current interpretation of the extremist perspective of separation of church and state. The degree with which we practice this provision since 1962 is not what our founding fathers intended. Prayer in schools would not be such a taboo subject; neither would the ability of a state Supreme Court Judge to interpret the law because of his faith in the Lord and his decision to hang the Ten Commandments in court. The scrutiny of the Pledge of Allegiance, particularly the part that states “under God,” would not be taken as a federal question to be labeled unconstitutional. Perhaps we should take a step back from stare decisis and reexamine the true meaning of the constitution. If our Constitution is currently being deduced as one in which the word ?God? used in pledging allegiance to our country is considered unconstitutional, then contradiction is among us.