I added the hyphen for affect because the word reconstituted actually means to “return something to its original form usually by adding water”.  But what we don’t want to do is water down the Constitution.  In fact almost everything we currently debate about in this country can be related back to the Constitution or at least it seems that we try our best to push it in that direction.  As Americans, we have almost an insatiable need to interpret and sometimes even redefine everything — especially things like the US Constitution if it suits our agenda.  Was it designed to be completely unambiguous or is it a living document that was imbued with fluidity that would last for a thousand years or more? I honestly can’t say but I know a lot of people think they can answer these questions.

It makes me wonder if this innate desire is driven in part by our need to make things personally relatable.  We want those founding documents to be about us, and by us I mean me, and you in a very individual way.  But is that what the founders had in mind when they drafted these sacred pages?  Could it be that because language has evolved in the last 170 or so years that our word for word interpretation now has a different meaning?

What if it’s not really about me and you as individuals but the collective us, WE THE PEOPLE?  As you can see, I have a lot of questions and this is where I hope to find and post some answers.  And probably ask a lot more questions along the way.  I hope if nothing else it gets you thinking on your own and reading the document for yourself with maybe a different eye from time to time…