Founders believed strong morals were essential for country’s leaders

Editor:

In response to Seefeldt’s recent concerns, I’m rather baffled. Seefeldt believes the Constitution prohibits regulating or punishing morality. As the Constitution addresses slavery, alcohol consumption, age and sex discrimination (voting) – all moral issues if there ever were any – Seefeldt’s presumptions fall flat.

While we rightfully revere our Constitution, however the originators of that document were far less enamored with it. Some of the Constitution’s creators felt that document might be valid for perhaps 25 years at best. Thus, the Constitution was not a signed document.

On the other hand, the document most treasured and revered by our Founders was the Declaration of Independence. A document signed by 56 individuals pledging their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. Make no mistake, the Declaration is a moral document. So while Seefeldt suggests that “…true intent is virtually impossible to prove as a matter of fact…” I would point to our Declaration and confidently state that the “true intent” and “matter of fact” it presents are completely clear and unambiguous. Thus “true intent” is entirely possible to prove and is easily matter of fact.

Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence was a treasonous document and all involved with it were traitors. It’s signatories were fully cognizant that their moral position was against the law and, if caught, they would hang for it. One signatory looked over at Massachusetts’ Elbridge Gerry (whom the term Gerrymandering comes from) and stated, “You’re lucky. You’re fat. When you’re caught, and they hang you, you will die quickly. I on the other hand am small and thin, so I will swing for perhaps an hour.”  In other words – in their Declaration, our Founders believed to exist a level of morality in residence that over-rode all man-made laws. And they were right. Thomas Jefferson wrote that this morality – these truths – were “sacred.” Benjamin Franklin changed it to “self evident.”

At that time, England’s King George was the law of the land. Our Declaration addressed the immorality – and thus the validity –  of the those laws.  Seefeldt’s position suggest to me that in the late 18th century – we got it wrong –  by law, we should have sided with the King. If for moral reasons we didn’t side with the King then – we should not be expected to do so now.

Respectfully submitted,

Darren D. Wilson

Lyndonville