"Constitution" (a.k.a. re-incorporation) Day

222 years ago the FIRST corporation that colonial Americans had lived under was 'modified'. That's what it says in the 'Preamble' to the 1787 Constitution. A mere nine years after the founders of the nation had formed a Confederacy, they were forming a 'more perfect' union among the States. That union was ALREADY called The United States of America, according to Article I of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

So . . . what was wrong with the FIRST United States of America?

For one thing, there is no mention of individuals (referred to as 'inhabitants' of the States) having any 'rights'. They are granted 'privileges', but no rights are mentioned except those enjoyed by the States. Nice to see that some of those same men eventually recognized this as lacking in the first contract, and corrected it in the second (only by amendment, as if in hindsight), but that is not the point of this post. The purpose is to point out that BOTH documents were literally articles of INCORPORATION.

Or didn't you get that when you were studying 'government' in high school? Your teachers didn't tell you (probably because they themselves hadn't thought in these terms?) that this was a compact, an agreement, a contract between STATES, and the men who 'belonged' to those States. It was probably not explained to you, nor did you stop to think about it, because your English instructors didn't give you a proper grounding in the language, that (as is so clearly pointed out toward the end of the Preamble to the 1787 Constitution) this new, or modified corporation, was set up for the benefit of THOSE men who signed it and THEIR posterity.

It was not set up for your benefit. It was not set up for the benefit of anybody else living at that time. It was set up for the landed gentry of the day, specifically the ones who actually signed the document, their CHILDREN and descendants (see Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary definition of the word 'posterity', if you don't believe this), anybody who followed them in their offices, of course, and NOBODY else.

So, my question is: why do we keep 'defending' this document with our lives, our children's lives, and our fortunes if the ONLY beneficiaries of the corporation are the wealthy who hold those offices and THEIR children?

Something to think about . . .