An Amendment for Mankind

An Amendment for Mankind
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Note to readers: I think it may be high time we rethink about what we consider American because the Constitution of the United States of America is a timetable of it, and it has shown that once we isolate a group based on their complexion, faith, sexaul preference, or nationality-it increases chances of aggression and breeds injustice.

“We the People...” are the first three lines of the constitution of the United States of America. Yet, historically the United States has not been about the people. If the preamble was to directly reflect this history, it would read as, “We the selected few of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote our Welfare, and secure the Blessings granted by Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

But, the reflected version is not the actual version that is written in the Constitution. It clearly starts with “we.” The pronoun is defined by Oxford Dictionary as, “Used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together.” So, the usage of this pronoun in the preamble emphasises a group of people. The criterion of this group of people are individuals who believe in the founding ideologies, which are exhibited in the latter sections of the preamble, “...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...”

Therefore, the amendment granting rights to the once oppressed groups of people should have been to define people instead of describing their circumstance because it would have granted them more recognition and condemn an era in American history through recognizing that words were incorrectly used to suit that timeframe. In addition, it would have better suited the Founding Fathers impulse for science and empiricism. Thus, the amendment should have read as:

“People is defined as anyone that belongs to the category of homo sapiens.”

This would have granted anyone the rights given to a person by the constitution while avoiding technicalities or loopholes, for it only considers one’s relation to his or her species rather than associations, and it acknowledges all humans are created equal with variations.

The Founding Fathers did maintain a system that enslaved and disenfranchised people, but they were plagued by their timeframe to behave in such a system. But, the timeframe that we currently stand-in can peer into the past at a quicker rate and determine things beyond our social fact if we choose to do so!

Popular in the Community


What's Hot