Sacred text?

The first constitution that included a process for amendments was the one promulgated by William Penn for Pennsylvania.  Prior to that, instruments of government were presumed to be good for all time.  Penn, however, had the modesty to assume that his charter might need to be modified as conditions changed.

The men who wrote the U.S. Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 were equally modest.  The document had seven articles, and one of them, Article V, spelled out the amending process.  It didn’t take long for amendments to be added, either.  The first ten were approved to reassure the anti-Federalists, who were concerned that the original text had no bill of rights.

I’m pretty sure the delegates would be amused, or maybe appalled, at statements by Michelle Bachman that the Constitution is a “sacred text,” given to us by God.  Actually, it was given to us by humans like Franklin and Madison and Hamilton, who argued and compromised and made secret deals behind closed doors.  

People recognized its flaws early.  When Lincoln spoke of “four score and seven years ago,” he was using the Declaration of Independence as our starting point.  He wanted to stress the “all men are created equal” material, not the document with the 3/5ths clause and its references to “other persons.”  

I have great respect for our Founding Fathers.  The Constitution they produced was impressive, but it is not sacred.  A presidential candidate or even a candidate for sheriff who calls the Constitution sacred or handed down by God should be laughed off the ballot.