The work of creating the Constitution was finalized on September 17, 1787. Some delegates left before the signing ceremony fully depleted physically and emotionally, and knowing the arduous work of ratification by the states lay ahead, or a few in simple protest. Finally, the work was done and the day was one of relief for all who remained in Philadelphia. Of the 55 persons who attended the Convention, 39 actually signed, while for some, a battle for a Bill of Rights came almost simultaneously with the final draft.
Certainly motives can not be questioned regarding Edmund Randolph’s concerns about a too “energetic government.” The mutual worries of Edmund Randolph, George Mason, and Elbridge Gerry about the lack of a Bill of Rights compelled them to refuse to sign. Their dissent was out in the open and their patriotism is not to be questioned.
Probably no one was completely satisfied. Benjamin Franklin summed up the views of many when he stated, “There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them.” Franklin would accept and sign the Constitution, however, “because I expect no better and because I am not sure that it is not the best.”
John Hancock signed his name largely and clearly. That patriot’s bold signature had the weight of his character behind this founding document. He had served for more than 2 years as President of the Continental Congress, and was now the first to sign it.
Even today, we have a right to know how a candidate “signs” – or applies the U.S. Constitution and the SC GOP Platform should they be elected. It’s a matter of character! The front page headline overstates the issue of signing our statement.
This is not about a pass or fail test! The only “political test” that “counts” is the ballot box. It is at the Primary and then the General election that the electorate makes their choice with a vote.
The Patriot’s task is to ensure that the electorate and the elected are adequately informed to make a wise choice, and make decisions that will be representative of “we the people.”
We have a right to know candidates’ DNA, and what is the likelihood that the GOP “family” DNA is a “match.” My identity comes not from a political party or platform. My identity comes from God and what He has given me as an American citizen. I chose to identify with the Republican Party because its platform most nearly matches my core.
A candidate signing our statement not only reveals with whom they identify, but it says something about their core and their view of America. It’s not about sound bytes; it’s about discerning how to take a bite out of eloquence or ignorance. It’s not about violating First Amendment rights; it’s about validating a candidate’s core and right to identify with the Republican “brand.” It’s not about muzzling diversity of opinion which most of us have; it’s about authenticating where we begin to communicate about a candidate’s convictions and persuasions.
It’s not about exclusion from the GOP; it’s about transparent character! My earlier post, “Got sacred honor?” elaborates on this theme. We don’t look for “modern” DNA on a comb, but in “debateable” words. In the end it’s about a “family” relationship together based on mutual trust and accountability. It’s fine to click on the grey bar below “Leave a comment” and write your thoughts. Thank you.