Candidates Signing in DNA

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.” constitution22Franklin 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.


One thought on “Candidates Signing in DNA

  1. Angela says:

    Thank you for your ‘WORDS’. I especially appreciate the last one in your article! It really is all about knowing what the person truly believes and having some sort of ‘accountability’. Many may just assume candidates will stand in line with their Party platform. Nevertheless, every person is different and may have differences with a particular issue. However, if that is the case, it shouldn’t be to much to ask that the candidate give their word on what it is they represent, or don’t. If they don’t agree with something in their Parties’ Platform then they ought to tell everyone up front. They also shouldn’t give speeches on such ‘principles and values’ as the “free market” and limited government if they aren’t going to apply them to all areas of our lives (or our childrens). At very least they should read and know their Platform well enough, and also always be the sort of individual to give careful thought before signing something. I can appreciate the founders that didn’t sign (as you mentioned) because they were at least respectful of the weightiness to signing their name to something. They were probably also very conscious of the words they spoke. Truthfully, you can’t preach ‘principles and values’ and then say you know better then applying them because of personal connections you may have, or for any other reason for that matter. Thanks for the historic reminder and for being such a bold and determined Patriot. Thanks you for helping WE THE PEOPLE hear more then just what we are expected to.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s