FREE ESSAY ON FOUNDING FATHERS?

FOUNDING FATHERS?

The Constitution
For a majority of Americans the U.S. Constitution 
(w/ the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of 
Independence) is viewed almost as a holy document. 
These pieces of wood pulp decorated with some 
borderline poetic text have been elevated to a level 
which prevents us from drastically changing them for 
fear of being accused of being blasphemous. While I 
don't question the true value of these documents, I 
do question our reasons for keeping them in place. 
Do we revere these documents because they came from
such great men, or is it because we fear what might
happen to our society in the event that we do 
drastically change them. Must the ideals be written
down to be validated or do they exist regardless of
where, how, and if they are displayed. If, as stated,
"we hold these truths to be self-evident", then why 
must they be put on paper? Shouldn't those truths 
have been the foundation upon which a successful 
constitution was drafted rather than an after-thought?
If our "creator" (or whom-ever) endowed us with certain 
inalienable rights, then shouldn't those rights been 
the primary concern during the constitutional 
conventions. The fact is that the U.S. Constitution 
came first while our inalienable rights were pulling 
up the rear. The primary concern of our "Founding 
Fathers" was the good of the nation as a whole, not 
each of us as individuals. Our world has changed in so
many ways that one should question if our "Founding 
Fathers" could even recognize the U.S. in the year 
2000. With the break-neck pace of the informational 
age (revolution...?) shouldn't we begin to reclaim our
rights and ultimately our power from the national 
government rather than submit any further? In a world
where the Internet appears to be the "way of the future"
why do we still insist that the government is best left 
up to the few chosen officials. Granted we play a part 
in our government via "watch-dogs" (press & whistle-
blowers) and elections, but couldn't we more effectively
govern on a much more individual level. At this point 
in time I don't feel as if my opinion truly counts 
unless I am backed by a great deal of financial 
support or political power (which is ultimately achieved
through financial support). A far more effective 
government would be one in which each individual 
counted equally, one in which money didn't decide 
whether or not ones idea is a more or less valid one.
Until the day where we are all truly politically equal
our society will remain at this plateau, and the ideas
and wishes of the "financially insignificant majority 
faction" will remain just that; ideas and wishes.