What the Constitution Means to Me - Comments

I really enjoyed this article. There don't seem to be enough people who both know and reverence our Constitution today. I myself take it for granted sometimes.
As others have mentioned, there are grammatical errors. Nothing a read over couldn't fix(:

I enjoy your patriotism, however, I must tell you that in an article such as this -- even in strong opinion articles, really - the author needs to stray away from any pronouns. You use pronouns a lot and it's rather unnecessary in this article. Also, there are a lot of grammatical errors that can be weeded out with another read-over.

The following statements are factually incorrect:

"We owe our God, our Founding Fathers, and the millions yet unborn too much to let the country slip out of our control and crash."

"The Constitution is a summary of what mankind has fought for and against in the history of mankind."

" Men and women pondered over government and inscribed things that no one thought of and dared to share before."

"All of our Founders gave their whole lives in service of our country so that the government can go in the right direction to maintain freedom."

The majority of our Founding Fathers were Atheists. In fact, God came into play in our flag salutes relatively recently in order to combat the Red Scare/the Communist Threat.

"The history of mankind" is way too exaggerated. There is so much that has happened in the whole history that doesn't apply to the Constitution. The Constitution is definitely a summary of modern over-comings, but not the history of mankind. Though, on the other hand, one is allowed to exaggerate to make a point. Either way, it's your call. I just think it's a bit exaggerated for this serious piece.

Women weren't allowed or taken seriously for most of modern history. Men pondered over government structure and wrote it down. Few women were allowed to be educated and even fewer were respected for any deep thinking that would be a product of their education.

Jefferson had slaves. Franklin was a huge womanizer, which is a behavior that mightily suppresses women in such a fragile time.

This is just a pet peeve: "Most of those that sacrificed for a better era have not been able to experience the product of their labors." It should be 'most of those WHO..." That is for objects. Who is for people.

All in all, this feels like more of a draft than an article. There are grammatical errors that need to be weeded out, you have to have an author for every quote, and I think you need to hone in on your point instead of praising the Constitution. I'm confused as where you bring this article because you spend half your time praising the Constitution and half your time putting people in the lime light. If you're more focused and more specific with your quotes, facts and backed up opinions, everything will be clearer. If you polish up the syntax and focus your point just a tad, I think this could be a really good article.

Hope I didn't come off too harshly. I was my HS Editor-in-Chief and I make money from editing now.

I'm so gratified by your comment! I was afraid I'd get something uncivil because of the negativity in this country's media towards this precious document. Thank you for your words. I guess I should have been more specific about the machine theme. My Daddy works with machines and so as his daughter I hear a lot about them. The machines are as good as 1) the program and 2) the operator. He has had several machines break and malfunction because of operator error so of course I used that as my theme.

Daddy has told me it takes education to run a machine and common sense. I should have touched on that. I admit I was aiming for an audience that is interested in the Constitution's preservation. I also used hints and allusions to subjects I expected my audience to know a little of already which is why I'm gratified to your point about the theme.

I use a website to censor my visual entertainment and the morals they use are the basic ones: violence and gore, sexual content and nudity, profanity, and frightening/intense scenes. They use these standards because basically anyone who wishes to censor their entertainment agree on the same morals. I wish our fellow citizens could as well across the vast diversified expanse. Is this law expensive? Does this law infringe upon the Bill of Rights? How will this court decision affect the country's human nature? Above all, does this comply with the Constitution? The Constitutiuon is designed to combat the worst of human nature and keep the country virtuous. Alas, our country has been loose these hundred years.

Thank you for your input! This is a gift for an author whose purpose is to cause the brain to think and connect. Thank you!

It was a well written article, I will give you that. I like the idea of the Constitution and the government as a computer but in truth it is much messier than that. What a machine does not take into account is humans sympathy and feelings. Take for example a topic very widely discussed in America today, to the point of almost a cliche effect, Gay Marriage.

If America was a machine, and all rights in the Constitution were given and then protected by our "firewall" this would be a non-issue-- since that right is protect in our Bill of rights. However the country does not work like that. Their are opinions and morals at hand in this issue, or if we continue with your well formed metaphor, a virus of sorts. This virus is the source of trouble in America because humans are not machines. They are not make decisions without their beliefs and morals out of it. I am not saying that we should do that, because that is what makes us human, but it does cause for a hole in your metaphor.

Regardless I enjoyed your article very much. It was extremely well written, structured and executed. If anything it is my lack of American pride that finds flaw in the beautiful idea you have put into words. Good job.