The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 3 -- "In Order to Form a More Perfect Union"

"In order to form a more perfect union..."

Now you have to know a little history to understand this line. The original Constitution of the United States called 'The Articles of Confederation' was not working. The unity that had once existed between the various states during the revolution had basically disintegrated. The Articles gave the central government very little power --effectively none unless their was a war. The idea of forming a more perfect union was large in many peoples' minds. The thought of protecting the rights of states to run their own affairs was on the minds of others.

Biblically, a parallel existed as the tribes of Israel were much the same before the advent of the kingdom of Saul. The problem with this is some people believe that things were too free and wanted a king to protect them. The statement in Judges "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" is not a moral statement; it is a political one. Samuel himself was probably the author of judges and he was not pro-monarchy but quite the opposite. He can't be saying that the monarch got people to stop sinning because that was far from the truth. The statement is about the fact that each man stood in his own sovereignty before God himself. There was no king to answer to but God himself. The issue is that people often look to centralized authority in times of crisis. In the case of the time of judges, the authority was supposed to be God and His Law but judges would handle the crisis points empowered by God. Each man was very free and had massive liberty as long as he, by choice, followed the law of God. It was in short: a theocratic democracy.

In the United States at the time of late 1700's God was in the picture but not a ruler but as bystander and each state handled its own affairs, unfortunately there existed no central government with the power to handle things when to states had a dispute with each other. Union was not on any person's mind but states rights. The Constitution is a result of finding a better way to balance states rights with a need for a centralized power to handle crisis and disputes. The result was a limited central power but with strength within its limits.

The Constitution in and of itself was not powerful enough in many respects for some when regarding in the rights of individuals and states. The individual question was answered by the Bill of Right some years later. But the question of states verses Federal rights has always been heated as this was and still is not quite spelled out in the Constitution. This issue got so heated once we had a Civil War over it.

This line was an attempt to placate both sides -- we want to be united but we know it is an attempt at a more perfect union, not one that does not respect states' rights.

Next: Establish Justice