Here is a taste of Uncommon Sense, just one of my unfinished projects

Uncommon Sense is an in depth look at how times have changed in how America’s people and leaders view the founding documents left in our care.  I hope you enjoy it.  Feedback is more than welcome. This is just a taste. 

Chapter 1

THE CONSTITUTION, IF IT AIN’T BROKE, DON’T FIX IT.

[Why we are still a proud and solid nation, Why we can’t just "change the constitution because its old and outdated"]

My opinion on the state of the Union changes almost daily. Some days I am completely discouraged by what I see and hear around me. Others, I find amazement and relief in the competence of our country’s founding patriots.

During the early formative years of the Union, there was certainly rancor and discord among people of all walks of life, even those who argued the points of our constitution. States were as varied in their ideas as much as the difference in location, experience and status of their inhabitants. The glue that held them together was a common cause, a common enemy and a desire for the better future for the generations that would follow them.

I, however, would argue that this is not what has made the Union a success for experience has proven that even the most passionate of people can become forgetful, even more forgiving as their memories grow into a haze. What drives a man or even a people’s zeal can be lost in less than a generation.

What has made our Union strong is the foresight of brilliant and courageous men in their efforts to protect us against this simple truth. They concluded that our government must include safeguards against the whims of its people, the greed of its leaders and all of our predestined forgetfulness.

Using their knowledge of governments, ancient, historical, and those they bore witness to daily along with their own experiences, the founders sought to cover all of the bases so to speak. Proof of this wisdom is that we are still a nation free from despotism in a time when the memory of the revolution is blurred beyond recognition. It is this that gives me solace after the momentary but daily cringes I experience as witness to the workings of our government and its people.

Many great and more intelligent men have gone before me to explain these facts in great detail. Throughout this work I will refer to Thomas Paine and Alexis de Tocqueville often and with admiration. There are many others for sure but a great credit is due them for their observances as they did not have the luxury of the hindsight I and my contemporaries share.

In “Democracy in America” de Tocqueville records in astonishing detail, the creation, operation, and rationale for our system of government noting its example, even pointing its humanly unavoidable deficiencies and vices. I have no desire to rewrite his work for I could not improve on it. I will, however, borrow his wisdom to illustrate the foolishness of those who in our current day wish to alter our constitution.

An area that has received notable discussion is the ( proposed changes to the constitution in our current day)

[State’s rights? Vote with your feet.]

I have already made a passionate argument for maintaining our constitution. I think it proper to also encourage it to be respected and abided. The area of greatest noncompliance is the 10th ammendment contained in the Bill of Rights. Reason would dictate that the items contained within the Bill of Rights were clearly at the top of the list of import to those who ratified the document. After all, these elements were at the subject of the most discussion and deliberation. Reason, again, would dictate that as such, they should be treated as having great worth to the constitution as a whole. Our founding fathers sought to establish a national government sure, but with absolute, unerring dedication to the respect of each of the Union’s state’s individual liberties. The constitution is intended to coexist with the individual governments of each state, not to replace, subjugate or usurp them. The Union’s constitution would actually govern the citizens of each state, not the state’s themselves and only in the intended limited capacity with which the constitution specifies.The Union was established in that moment of passion when necessity demanded it and doubtedly would have occurred otherwise. The states varied in more ways than they were the same. Their methods of commerce, the origin of their inhabitants, even their mere geography dictated that the history, religion, and even the morality of their citizens would lead them to disparate even divergent wants and needs.

The 10th ammendment exists precisely to guarantee the states autonomy in all areas except those where the Union’s authority was clearly defined.

Two hundred years later, advances in technology have dissolved many of the differences that had once existed. Trade between the states, national infrastructure, first rails, then a national highway system, the internet and many other factors have over time transformed the Union into a more uniform body.

Differences do exist however and the desire to ignore these distinctions and trample them with Federal law is and has been a detriment to the strength of the nation.

The variations that exist in the culture demand that the sovereignty of the Union’s citizens begin with them and expand outwardly respecting each sphere of influence. The decisions that affect only that citizen should be freely made by that citizen. Decisions that affect a community or township such as the building of a school, the naming of a street, etc. should be made by that community and so on. Conflicts will naturally arise but the fundamental principle of liberty requires the adherence to this philosophy as much as possible.

I have often heard a quote attributed to Ronald Reagan, “Vote with your feet”. The implication being that the diversity of the nation should allow anyone to find a home where similar values, culture to their own were practiced.