Home
- 5000YearLeap_P6230187rs.jpg (22.62 KiB) Viewed 3362 times
I'm less than 1/10th through the book, so I'll resist trying to summarize it. But by page 22, I can already see its heavy emphasis on the delicate balancing act that became the Constitution of the United States. On page 22, the author (W. Cleon Skousen) makes the case for how carefully the founders worked during the Constitutional Convention of 1787:
To encourage the delegates to freely express themselves without the usual formalities of a convention, the majority of the discussions were conducted in what they called "the Committee of the Whole." This committee consisted of all the members of the Convention, but, as a committee, decisions were always tentative and never binding in the same way they would have been if voted upon by the Convention. Only after a thorough ventilating of the issues would the Committee of the Whole turn themselves back into a sitting of the Convention and formally approve what they had just discussed in the Committee.
The object of the Founders was to seek a consensus or general agreement on what the Constitution should provide. After four months of debate they were able to reach general agreement on just about everything except the issues of slavery, proportionate representation, and the regulation of commerce. All three of these issues had to be settled by compromise. It is a mistake however, to describe the rest of the Constitution as a "conglomerate of compromises," because extreme patience was used to bring the minds of the delegates into agreement rather than simply force the issue to finality with a compromise. This is demonstrated in the fact that over 60 ballots were taken before they resolved the issue of how to elect the President. They could have let the matter lie after the first ballot, but they did not. They were anxious to talk it out until the vast majority felt good about the arrangement. This is why it took 60 ballots to resolve the matter.
Of course that passage resonated with me because that's what I had hoped to do with the HGAA. Unfortunately, that kind of patient consensus building was undermined by a small few who seized control (by dubious means) and began forcing votes on topics that hadn't been fully vetted and understood by the entire group. The subsequent failure of the HGAA can be traced directly to that coup.
I originally picked July 4th (2010) as the targeted birth date for the HGAA because I've always honored and respected the processes that led to the founding of the United States. Yes, there were mistakes (like slavery) that slipped through that original Constitution. But if nothing else, our last presidential election proved that the Constitution was so well crafted that it could eventually correct even its own flaws. That's the kind of organization that I would like to found with the US Hawks. I welcome all sincere individuals to participate in our own "Constitutional Convention". This is our chance to design a flying organization based on the principles that have guided our nation for over 200 years. Let's work together to build something great.
