Before diving headlong into this series, I want to give a little insight into what I have rapidly found to be a myriad of pathways regarding the discussion of voting. I had it in my head to launch into the beginnings of voting, the basics, the history. How safe and easy even if educational. Then, I started thinking a little deeper as I considered all the noise and clamor of our current state of elections as a result of 2020 and even in the years upon years leading up to it. What is it we are voting for when we step into the voting booth to “pull the lever” for local, state, and federal office holders? Take a few moments, if you will, and reflect on the history of your own voting activities. What kind of voter are you? Boy, that’s a loaded question, isn’t it?
Are you a “political wonk” who studies in-depth all the races and the issues, able to literally quote chapter and verse? Are you a “perfect attendance” voter who doesn’t miss a mid-term, special, run-off, or big presidential election date, or are you a hit-or-miss voter, usually hitting on the big presidential day and maybe an important mid-term or two? Are you a straight ticket voter, no matter who it is as long as it isn’t the other party (Go, team!)? Are you the voter who tries to study up on the issues and the candidates as best you can, who leaves a few blank because you’re not really sure about the candidate choices and don’t want to be arbitrary about it because, after all, it is a responsibility, right?
Oh, man, Scarlett, that’s a lot of probing questions, you’re making me face about myself as a voter!
I know it is. Just lean into it.
After mulling over these questions in an effort to find the best approach to begin this series on voting, before too long, I realized that it boils down to a very clear starting point: the Constitution, even more specifically, the Preamble. Do you remember it? In my school, 8th grade Social Studies, we had to memorize it and recite it when called upon. Today, decades later, I had to look it up, but as soon as I started reading, it all came back to me.
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.
In our modern era, it seems words are cheap — a barrage of tweets and sound bites and slogans and mottos. In all honesty, though, words matter. Words mean the difference between life or death, and that’s not hyperbole, especially where the Founders were concerned. Words mattered a great deal to a group of people who, to the very core of their beings, collectively made the conscious decision to take head-on one of the most powerful monarchies in the world, facing the very real risk of death, in order to build a bedrock foundation for a nation of people to truly live free. And they did so, not just for their lifetime, but for generations to come. No easy task.
Original Contract vs. Living, Breathing Document
Before breaking down the Preamble, one area of critical clarification is necessary. Up until about 15 years ago, I understood the Constitution to be the Constitution, a document by which our nation is bound to uphold and follow. A document that was so heavily deliberated and carefully crafted to stand the test of time. I found out that makes me an Originalist. Then, I started hearing about this view that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document.” Curious. So, let’s dig in.
A contract is binding. Whatever parties enter into the contract and agree to its contents are then responsible to uphold it. Some contracts are simple, others complex, requiring hours, days, weeks, even months to hammer out to the satisfaction of all parties involved. Contracts can be changed (amended), but all parties must agree, or at least a determined majority, in order for a change to be made. Contracts are promises to do or deliver things and are done in good faith that all parties will actually do their part to honor the contract. If someone does not, that is a breach and is actionable to gain satisfactory correction. People rely on contracts and the good faith that they will be abided. Contracts provide peace of mind, stability, and trust. Such is the Constitution. It is the most important contract with the People of the United States, a promise of security but with the ability to amend because it was understood that conditions at the time of its writing could not address certain issues, but would undoubtedly have to be addressed in the years to come with a mechanism to do so. However, the process for amending is very specific and difficult on purpose, to deter constant and arbitrary changes. In his book, Liberty and Tyranny, Mark Levin puts it more succinctly: “The Constitution is the bedrock on which a living, evolving nation was built. It is — and must be — a timeless yet durable foundation that individuals can count on in a changing world. It is not perfect but the Framers made it more perfectible through the amendment process” (38).
In my years studying and then teaching Shakespeare to college students, one thing is for certain: human nature never changes. The clothes, customs, music, entertainment, slang may change, but human nature remains a constant. Whether now or five centuries ago, or in the time of Christ and before, as historians show repeatedly, humans still possess hope, ambition, passion, petulance, jealousy, bravery, pride, dissembling, cowardice, impatience, pettiness, fear, … the list goes on. Can’t deny it - just look at today’s reality TV shows. The Founders understood this very simple truth and wisely kept it foremost in mind as they hashed out the Constitution. Obviously, and they understood this as well, the Constitution was not going to provide an answer for every issue or address every concern, and this is where some would point and say, then, that the Constitution is flawed when, in fact, no reasonable person would expect absolute perfection. Instead, the Constitution provides for a limited government with mechanisms to maintain checks and balances in that government so that the true power still rests mainly with the people. It provides stability.
Levin explains: “…the Constitution sets forth certain terms and conditions for governing that hold the same meaning today as they did yesterday and should tomorrow. It connects one generation to the next by restraining the present generation from societal experimentation and government excess” (36). Pretty simple. This is what’s known as originalism where the Constitution means what it means.
Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, put it this way in a speech he gave in 1996 at the Catholic University of America, “…every day, in every way, we get better and better. Now, you know that Pollyanish attitude is not the attitude that is possessed by people who adopt a bill of rights. People who adopt a bill of rights know that societies not only evolve, they also rot. And they are worried that future generations may not have the integrity and wisdom that they do, so they say, ‘Some things are going to freeze in, and they will not change.’ But no, the contemporary generation does not see it that way, and will not have it that way…the Constitution means what it ought to mean. Not what it did mean, but what it ought to mean.”
When you consider the sheer enormity of the task of the Founders, one cannot help but be both amazed and grateful. They knew they had to create a document so solid in its simplicity with an understanding of human nature that always strives to improve, but also falls frequently and predictably, that it would stand the test of time. It would mean what it meant in the 18th century and in the 21st century and in centuries to come.
So, what is this “living, breathing” thing? Scalia refers to it as the Modernist (or Constitutional Evolutionist) view because it is neither liberal nor conservative, but rather the modernist view (current time) versus the traditional view (original). Scalia states in his speech, “It should not be thought, although it is often argued, that this new way of looking at the Constitution is desirable because it promotes needed flexibility…The argument is as follows: ‘The Constitution is meant for a living society. If it could not grow and evolve with the society, it would become brittle and snap. You have to provide the flexibility.’” The Originalist would answer that the Constitution was built with a mechanism for flexibility, the amendment process. Further, it has proven to do exactly what the Modernist says it needs to do through the post-Civil War Amendments on the slavery question and the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote, to name a few. So what is the problem?
Expediency. Wanting change, wanting it imposed nationally, and wanting it NOW. Scalia continues:
What [Modernists] want is to impose a view of things on the whole society from coast to coast, and it is most quickly and effectively done through the Constitution. And the easiest and quickest way is to get it done via judicial interpretation. Rather than go the slow, difficult, and troublesome route of getting a constitutional amendment drafted, formally proposed and ratified, persuade the highest court in the land to interpret the Constitution so broadly and loosely as to enable it read the desired policy into the Constitution. Now there’s several vices to a non-originalist approach to the text of the Constitution. The first and most important difficulty with it pertains to the question of legitimacy. The Constitution of the United States nowhere says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means, or that the Supreme Court shall have the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the Congress of the United States on the ground that, in the Court’s view, the statutes do not comport with the Constitution. It doesn’t say that anywhere in the Constitution. We made that up.
Think about it. Every day, it seems, the news is riddled with stories of this circuit court and that circuit court and now the Supreme Court taking on case after case after case to determine constitutionality. And maybe you, like me, with all of this noise and commentary supporting it, have believed for a long time that the Supreme Court of the United States is where the buck stops as the final authority when, in fact, it is not. More on that in the future, so stay tuned. What it comes down to is interpretation versus manipulation.
Are Today’s Factions New?
In searching the Federalist & Antifederalist Papers for some original historical perspective, I came across one from an author known only as The Federalist Farmer (historically identified as either Melancton Smith, Richard Henry Lee, or Mercy Otis Warren). It was the title of this paper that caught my eye, “Antifederalist No. 37 - Factions and the Constitution.” If nothing else, it makes the point that human nature doesn’t change very much, and the fears experienced today were the same in the 1700s. While there was an understanding that some sort of central government was necessary, there existed a healthy wariness, even fear, of such a government becoming too powerful, placing the people back into the tyrannical situation they fought hard to leave. Federalist Farmer begins:
…To have a just idea of the government before us, and to show that a consolidated one is the object in view, it is necessary not only to examine the plan, but also its history, and the politics of its particular friends.
The confederation was formed when great confidence was placed in the voluntary exertions of individuals, and of the respective states; and the framers of it, to guard against usurpation, so limited, and check the powers, that, in many respects, they are inadequate to the exigencies of the union. We find, therefore, members of congress urging alterations in the federal system almost as soon as it was adopted. It was early proposed to vest congress with powers to levy an impost, to regulate trade, etc., but such was known to be the caution of the states in parting with power, that the vestment of these, was proposed to be under several checks and limitations.
A government that formed a confederation (unification) of several states would be stronger for handling certain areas of society. In The Real Thomas Jefferson, to James Madison, Jefferson outlined his thoughts on the guiding principles of the Constitution; “To make us one nation as to foreign concerns, and keep us distinct in domestic ones, gives the outline of the proper division of powers between the [federal] and [state] governments. But to enable the federal head to exercise the powers given it to best advantage, it should be organized as the [state] ones are, into legislative, executive, and judiciary. The first and last are already separated. The second should be” (377).
However, even at this early stage, as Farmer points out, before they had even begun, there were those who sought to chip away to gain more centralized power. Take a moment and think about what they might think if they saw today how the federal government, largely through unelected agency officials, has power over nearly all aspects of daily life. What really set me back on my heels was Farmer’s outline of the factions involved during the framing of the Constitution. Farmer addresses how a high level of trust on the part of the people had been placed in a handful of men to forge a government structure that would be strong and respected while at the same time would protect and respect the will of its own people. The worry, gravity, and seriousness of this heavy responsibility can be felt in Farmer’s following description. Keep in mind the country’s current, modern state of affairs for comparison (Note: “parties” means groups, not specific political parties). The parallels are profound:
…And I see the danger in either case will arise principally from the conduct and views of two very unprincipled parties in the United States - two fires, between which the honest and substantial people have long found themselves situated. One party is composed of little insurgents, men in debt, who want no law, and who want a share of the property of others; these are called revellers, Shayites, etc. The other party is composed of a few, but more dangerous men, with their servile dependents; these avariciously grasp at all power and property; you may discover in all actions of these men, an evident dislike to free and equal government, and they will go systematically to work to change, essentially, the forms of government in this country; these are called aristocrats, monarchists, etc. Between these two parties is the weight of the community; the men of middling property, men not in debt on the one hand, and men, on the other, content with republican governments, and not aiming at immense fortunes, offices and power…These two parties, which will probably be opposed or united as it may suit their interests and views, are really insignificant, compared with the solid, free, and independent part of the community.
Sound familiar?
Not much has changed including the solid, free and independent community of the People caught in the middle of the power hungry. Farmer’s last statement is both correct and incorrect. On the one hand, that these two factions are insignificant in their sheer numbers compared to the much more numerous citizens is certainly correct. However, these factions, especially today, are by no means insignificant in the amount of power they have managed to amass for themselves, primarily through regulation, coupled with media messaging that makes the People think themselves insignificant and unable to effect any change in present circumstances. Such a psychological grip, one that has been vise-like and pervasive for decades, however, is starting to lose its hold. The People realize they have the numbers, the power, and the will, and they are starting to stand up and voice their will at all levels of government. The People are significant, and prefer to be, as Farmer calls it, solid, free, and independent, left alone to live their modest lives.
Such observations solidify the Originalist view that the Constitution is not the “living breathing” document the Modernists claim it “ought to be.” The Framers understood this view well, faced it, and knew it would not likely disappear. If nothing else, it serves as a cautionary tale that continual vigilance by the People is necessary, required even, in order to preserve freedom and stave off tyranny. In The Real Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson remarks on the danger of inattention to government, “—If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I,…Congress and assemblies, judges and governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind” (460).
Human nature strikes again.
The Preamble Summarizes the Contract
To me, it’s like this, the Originalist understands that there are things that are fixed, “frozen” and solid by which we as human beings, imperfect as we are, are bound. These are simple, foundational truths or conditions. It’s like the parents who have a set of rules for how their children are to conduct themselves in a civil society. The Modernist is the person (child) who is not satisfied with what s/he perceives as needless restrictions or harsh boundaries and casts about looking for loopholes and supporters, primarily through the courts. They fish around until they obtain the result they want because they believe it should be that way, that it’s unfair to be restrained by civil rules. Add to that a very loud bullhorn and a constant drumbeat.
Think about the child whose mother says no to something he wants, so he skips over to his father, presents a case, and gets a yes before the father realizes that the mother was already asked and an answer rendered. What is the result? The problem with organizing a society in the Modernist’s way is that it is subject to constant change, which means constant upheaval, turmoil, and eventual chaos. Most everything becomes arbitrary. In their actions, they make the very case that concerned the Founders. The Modernist’s route takes the voice away from the people and puts it in the hands of a small number of judges.
The Preamble summarizes the Constitution’s main aims, and so gives you a general understanding of what the Constitution holds, namely:
The source of power to enact the Constitution (i.e., the People of the United States);
The broad ends to which the Constitution is ordained and established; and
The authors’ intent for the Constitution to be a legal instrument to lasting Posterity (Findlaw).
We the People of the United States,…
This opening established clearly from the start that the people, the citizens of the United States, put forth and support this Constitution, and are its true power.
…in Order to form a more perfect Union,…
The purpose, the People proclaim, is to create a more perfect - not a perfect - union comprised of the individual states. This is important because it often seems that those who rail against the constraints of the Constitution argue that it is not perfect, and because it is imperfect, it must be invalid, archaic, outdated, outmoded, etc., when it couldn’t be further from the truth. “More perfect” reflects the myriad sessions, discussions, expertise, history and experience the Founders brought to the table to create something never before seen. They looked at what worked and what didn’t among already known governments in an effort to make something even better than what came before, and they knew it could be made even better still if done so properly.
Where human nature is involved, there is no such thing as perfect, only more perfect, a striving toward perfection. They knew what they did not want, differed on what they did want, and sought to hammer out through compromise toward solidarity, those basic principles they could agree on to satisfy the immediate need to safeguard the People. They also put in place the mechanisms to effect change in the future to issues they could not, then, agree upon through the amendment process — a mechanism to continue to become more perfect.
…establish Justice,…
On its face, this seems a tricky one, especially in today’s climate because when one hears the word “justice” the mind tends to go to social justice. Upon further research, it appears that to establish Justice means to establish a proper judicial system or branch. Jefferson is very clear on this. In The Real Thomas Jefferson, to George Wythe, he states, “—The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people, and every blessing of society depend so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent [of] both,…so it may check upon both, as both should be checks upon [the judiciary]” (499). Whether it is justice (the act of being just) or Justice (the Judiciary), fairness and impartiality (blindness) are paramount, devoid of outside pressure and political influence. Current events highlight this aspect.
Jefferson was also very clear on preserving the original meaning and keeping to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, exactly Justice Scalia’s point. In 1823, Jefferson said, “On every question of construction, [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it passed.” Twenty years earlier in 1803, regarding interpretation of the Constitution, Jefferson explained, “When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, than assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless. Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction” (382). How fitting this last statement is in light of today’s political climate and how the Constitution is used (abused?).
The intent of the Constitution as it was written is to preserve the rights of the People, simply, not to nuance it to suit the whims and political factions of the day. Notice how he keeps coming back to the ability for some flexibility through the amendment process when he says he would rather ask for an enlargement of power from the People.
…insure domestic Tranquility,…
Maintain “peace at home” within the country between the states. Ten years prior, the Articles of Confederation (1777) repeatedly used the term “friendship” (e.g. “mutual friendship” and “league of friendship”) in reference to the intended relationship between the states and their respective citizens. Article III gives a good example of this intent: “The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.” Building a relationship of tranquility between the states sets the foundation for unified strength.
…provide for the common defence,…
A collection of states unified into a country portrays strength and, by extension, provides a deterrent against attacks from other countries. While a standing national military (army, navy, etc.) makes a good deal of sense, the Founders and the People in general had only recently come through a war that showed what a strong national military could do when set against the People, so there was a general wariness. Ideally, the federal (national) government’s role is to protect all of its people regardless what state they live in.
In her article, “Why Provide for the Common Defense?” author Mackenzie Eaglen explains:
The Founders realized that only an organized and professional military could respond to both domestic and foreign threats. That is why they authorized the building of forts, the creation of the U.S. Navy, and the founding of West Point. In times of peace, the United States has often been tempted to believe that it could safely disarm. The experience of the Founders convinced them that no peace was so secure that it could be relied upon with assurance, and no nation was so safe that it did not need to maintain sound and reliable defenses…But the Founders were also suspicious of standing armies. They knew that, in Europe, standing armies had been used by monarchies to oppress the people. In order to avoid this danger, while providing for the nation’s security, the Founders made the common defense a shared responsibility of Congress and the President, the elected (and separate) branches of government. This ensured the American military would serve the nation, not subvert the rule of the people.
Notice how in each area of power considered, the Founders acknowledged the need to have it, but also to limit power so that the People would be protected and not taken advantage of or abused. Do you feel that we have this today? Something to consider.
…promote the general Welfare,…
There was a time when neighbor helped neighbor, often discreetly, because folks as a proud people, believed in being independent, pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. A man who could not provide for his family was viewed as weak, and such a view stung deeply as a point of personal pride and dignity. Such was certainly the American way, and with this thinking was also the thinking that receiving, or rather accepting, charity was a hard thing to do because it butted up against that sense of pride.
The other side of this are those who become comfortable with charity, complacent and over time so used to it, that they eventually know no other way, growing to expect it or else, how will they live? I often think back to signs that say, “Don’t feed the bears” and others like it. There is a very good reason for this warning. If you take a wild animal, one that has been raised by its kind to be self-sufficient in its acquisition of food, but then you introduce an outsider who thinks it’s a kindness to give the bear food, the bear is not stupid. Over time, he will go with the easier thing by returning to where he was given food, expecting it. If he is rewarded enough times by various do-gooders, he forgets that he can do this on his own and so becomes dependent on the outsiders.
Inevitably, there will come a time where the food will no longer be provided, for his own good, to get him back to self-reliance. This may happen, but not without raging and rampaging and demanding the previous regular “kindness” of handouts. At that point, the bear becomes dangerous and unpredictable, lashing out at anyone he associates with the food he now requires. He becomes a nuisance bear and has to be dealt with, sometimes with an unfortunate conclusion. It was not the bear’s fault, but this is why wildlife managers have very careful protocols when bringing injured animals into captivity for any length of time. The goal is to heal them, with a mind to get them back into their natural environment as soon as possible.
In my research I see “promote” and “provide” used interchangeably. Again, words matter. The key word is “promote” not “provide.” So what’s the difference? Referring to the bear example, promoting its general welfare would be to respect the bear and its habitat - enjoy it from afar, but don’t interfere with its independence and self-reliance. If it becomes injured, the wildlife experts promote its general welfare by healing it, reacquainting it with its natural ways of self-reliance, making sure it can do this again, and then releasing it to be the bear it was intended to be.
On the other hand, providing for the bear, gives it everything it needs, but erases the bear’s identity or true nature, reducing it to a less dignified anthropomorphized zoo animal. Maintaining the bear’s existence in this way requires far more resources over the bear’s lifetime than those required for the short period of time needed to return the injured bear to the wild. Transfer this analogy to people.
As the common adage says, “If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. If you teach him to fish, he will eat for a lifetime.” It comes down to the question of how do we best help or support our fellow man without stripping away dignity, rather creating an environment where the individual can flourish? Does promoting the general welfare only mean that of the citizens directly? Think about this — if those we elect into federal office are entrusted to maintain favorable conditions for national security and the prospering of industry, wouldn’t such an environment positively affect the people of that environment so that they may be industrious in their self-reliance?
Society, especially modern society, has become so myopic and single-minded about the idea of welfare, that no room exists for the broader sense of it. To come to an understanding of this, I turn to President George Washington’s closing words in his First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union (January 8, 1790): “The welfare of our country is the great object to which our cares and efforts ought to be directed, and I shall derive great satisfaction from a cooperation with you in the pleasing though arduous task of insuring to our fellow citizens the blessings which they have a right to expect from a free, efficient, and equal government.” The welfare of the country means delivering an efficient and limited government, promised in the Constitution (contract), that affords its citizens an environment promoting the ability to exist with dignity as a free people.
…and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…
Forging the Constitution was no small feat. As Washington stated in 1788 to the Marquis de Lafayette, a staunch and active supporter of the American cause: “It appears to me…little short of a miracle that the delegates from so many different states (which states…are also different from each other in their manners, circumstances, and prejudices) should unite in forming a system of national government so little liable to well-founded objections” (The Real George Washington, 662). Just a perusal of The Federalist & Anti-Federalist Papers alone, exhibits the weighty and complex concerns raised by the states, and the fact that after so much debate and drafting, what they accepted, according to Washington “…approache[s] nearer to perfection than any government hitherto instituted among men” (663). Securing the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity was the North Star that guided them. It has always been about the People, the People of these united states.
Washington was very firm in his belief on this, “The power under the Constitution will always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can, and undoubtedly will, be recalled” (661). We, the People, entrust servants we select (elect) to carry out our wishes and defend our interests through the power given them by the Constitution. However, as Washington admonishes, the minute those servants break the trust of the people or run contrary to our wishes, we have the power to recall them. Such efforts are taking place in some states now with the people showing no confidence in state and federal officials who have gone their own way rather than listening to those they represent.
…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…
The Constitution was officially decreed and established on September 17, 1787. To Lafayette in 1788, Washington related how the Constitution provides barriers against tyranny in two critical ways: “1st. That the general government is not invested with more powers than are indispensably necessary to perform the functions of a good government; and consequently that no objection ought to be made against the quantity of power delegated to it” (The Real George Washington, 662). Very straightforward — only as much government as absolutely necessary has been established, and there should be no issue with the amount of power that has been given it.
He goes on, “2nd. That these powers (as the appointment of all rulers will forever arise from, and at short, stated intervals recur to, the free suffrage of the people) are so distributed among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, into which the general government is arranged, that it can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form, so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people” (662). He’s right. And yet, fast-forward to today. We are in the very late stages of a death by a thousand cuts because the eye of the elected official (not all, but far too many) has not remained on the North Star principle - the liberty and sovereignty of the American people. As far down the road as we are, though, we are reminded how the Founders provided the mechanisms for reigning in and correcting the situation. Involvement by the People at all levels of government, local, county, state as well as federal comes in many forms.
This brings me back to voting. Whether you fall into one of the voter types I mentioned at the beginning, or maybe you don’t vote at all, maybe conduct a little introspective exercise. See where it lands you. Think about your current situation as an American and the conversations you’ve had with yourself and with others regarding the state of our Union. Political party aside, just as a human being who happens to be an American, a part of We the People, be brutally honest with yourself.
We have a Republic if we can keep it. No one else is going to do it for us. Prepare for each election cycle by seeing what you can do. Nothing is too small if you are doing something (unless you are doing nothing). At least you can say with good conscience that you did what you could given your time, skills, interests, etc. Sure, you might take the bold step and decide to run for office at some level. Fantastic. You might look into helping at the polls. You might simply pledge to yourself to do some, or a little more, research on candidates to better inform your next vote. You may even decide to come off the sidelines to vote either for the first time or for the first time in a long time. Whatever action you choose, you are exercising your right as a free and sovereign member of the People to insure that those elected to represent us, no matter what level, do so virtuously and honorably in order to serve the People, not the other way around.
Helpful resources:
While I inserted links to key resources throughout my article, below are additional places you can go to learn more about the Constitution and Preamble concepts as well as ideas on how you might become involved.
Dan Schultz - Precinct Strategy
Joe Carter - Justice Scalia Explains Why the ‘Living Constitution’ Is a Threat to America
Antonin Scalia - Judicial Adherence to the Text of Our Basic Law: A Theory of Constitutional Interpretation
Antonin Scalia - Constitutional Interpretation the Old Fashioned Way
George Washington’s 1st Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union Address (1.08.1790)