The fundamental scheme of the American Nation, to many people, would be to make sense and order out of the question: "What makes a more perfect union?" To some people the more perfect union is the difference between human passion, and good reasoning to common sense. It wouldn't be unordinary for an American Scholar to first study the history of America, and America's underlying facts before making a decision on same sex marriage alone. I then asked myself what the Constitution was really framed from.

It is said that Wiliam Blackstone (1723-1780) was reffered to more than any other English or American Authority to the framing of the United States Constitution. It was also said that Abraham Lincoln reffered to Blackstone in his decision to abolish slavery. President Lincoln's  principles conclude a Judeo-Christian philosophy that man is created by God, and granted fundamental rights by God. It is safe to consider Blackstone and Lincoln as one, during the time of his presidency, through and after the civil war. . Most people don't know that  paper currency was first introduced and approved as legal tender in this country  on February 25, 1862 (During the Presidency of Lincoln). Paper currency carries a Blackstonian Principle of "In God We Trust" still today.

The Ten Commandments are the heart of Blackstone's philosophy. By the mid twentieth century, the U.S. Supreme Court repudiated Blackstone. However, no court to this date has abolished these principles nor his commentaries.

Some people in the United States still interpret the Constitution with the use of Blackstone principles, and hold these principles as family heritage, and traditions. A liberal attack would be to say that these principles are right wing, or homophobic. A look at underlying history would tell a completely different story, and say that liberal attacks were unjust to the interpretation of the Constitution the way it was originally interpreted in the first place.

God's Law is the sense and order of the universe. I put a quarter in the parking toll slot, not put parking toll into the quarter. Which is common sense to me, and can be one method of spreading good gospel, and just good plain common sense. I don't think I could ever explain that to a confused child any better, and that makes a more perfect union to me.

It isn't exactly homophobic to do what God asks us not to do. It isn't right wing to take him into consideration from time to time either. I do feel that if I combined the elements of the Constitution to Blackstone, and the Bible I would recieve my definite answer to why same sex marriage wouldn't work. Then again, if same sex marriage passed in every state of the Union, still means nothing. Because God has his reasons for letting people do as they will sometimes. Jesus is love yes, but God hates sin, and God and Jesus are one in the same. And I didn't have to be homophobic, or right wing to acknowlege all these facts.

Lincoln and Blackstone combined still gives us the same underlying message: In God We Trust. Lincoln and President John F. Kennedy combined still gives us the same message as well.  The most strangest thing I have encountered about Lincoln's assasination, was the parallel between it and the Kennedy Assasination

Kennedy was elected to office in 1960, Lincoln was elected to office in 1860.

Kennedy was shot on Friday, Lincoln was shot on Friday.

Kennedy was shot in the back of the head. Lincoln was shot in the back of the head.

Kennedy's wife was seated at his side, Lincoln's wife was seated by his side.

Never regained consciousness, Never regained consciousness.

Both were working on civil rights legislation at the time.

Both succeded by a southerner named Johnson,

Lee Harvey Oswald killed before he came to trial. John Wilkes  Booth killed before he came to trial.

Both Assasins names had 15 letters.

Both wives lost a son while being First Lady.

Lincoln and Kennedy's names both had 7 letters.

Lyndon Johnson born in 1908, Andrew Johnson born in 1808

Jack Ruby, who shot Oswald, pleaded insanity. Boston Corbett, who shot Booth, was found to be insane.

The assasin Oswald shot Kennedy from a warehouse, and hid in a theater. The assasin Booth shot Lincoln in a theater, and hid in a warehouse.

Lincoln studied Blackstone. Kennedy had to have studied Blackstone to graduate Harvard Cum Laude.  No one has ever made a positve link to the two assasinations, yet the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Which made me question todays times of shifting blame without reason, other than just plain circumstantial evidence, How many politicians do we have in today's tiime that would use this information to automatically blame another politician. How many politicians if paralleled to a closer amount of time would blame international terrorism? Booth and Oswald were probably terrorists, just not terrorists with a cold case link between the two assasinations.How many politicians would have just as well went ahead and made the accusation without really finding the cold hard facts. Paralleled to that, how many politicians would just go right ahead, and give ideas put into motion, without truly researching to cold hard facts, or taking other peoples traditions and heritages into consideration? Or maybe just plain shoving those ideas off onto people would be just the same as saying yes there is a definite link between two assasinations happening a hundred years apart.   I definitely had to think about God after reading the parallels. I then asked who is to really blame for tinkering with the original interpretation of the Constitution. Is it me? probably not. Is it the people who stutdied Blackstone and applied it? Probably not either. Is it Liberal attacks, due to irresponsibility compensation,?  yes probably.

Lincoln " I never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the Declaration of Independance that all should have an equal chance. This is the sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independance. I would rather be assasinated on this spot than surrender it."

Lincoln's Letter to John M. Brockman on September 25, 1860

J.M. Brockman Esq.

Dear Sir:

Yours on the 24th asking "the best mode of obtaiining a thorough knowledge of the law is recieved." The mode is very simple, though laborious, and tedious. It is only to get the books, and read and study them carefully. Begin with Blackstone's Commentaries, and after reading it carefully through, say twice.

Madison and Federalist #47

As the nature of a free government will admit, or as is consistent with that chain of connection that binds the whole fabric of the constitution in one dissoluble bond of unity and amity.

Which means the fore fathers agreed on matters consistent with the Constitution's interpretation. Madison speaks for himself.(Something a liberal activist wouldn't want to hear}

Then I thought to myself, why would the forefathers  agree on matters consistent with the interpretation of the Constitution. I turned to Blackstone's Theory of Locomotion. What would it take to make a steam engine work. Would it take several men that agreed on the parts of the operation of the steam engine to make it fire  and set the powerful pistons into motion. Yes, had I thought, and after the steam engine produced work, it became a part of the American fabric, invisible to many American's eyes, but the true essence of what really made the pistons set motion. The Constitution is the source, or machinery that sets fire to our ideas, and the product is  the American Dream.

Is the American Dream embodied in the classrooms of our children today? I wonder when many children fail the most elementary tests, or as of according to many statistics.And I know that someone is reading this, and when they do, they will realize that I asked myself the question a long time ago: What would people try so hard to keep an ordinary lower class worker away from, and without a doubt people would keep me away from the American Dream, or to successfully prosper in my own country, in which I am patriotic to. And that  pretty much wraps it up for my reporting status. I'd really rather write genre fiction anyway. Gotta Boogie!

I turned to world peace under one complete government (a pointless idea of a modern liberal,because if everyone were totally liberal would easily say that a government is pointless], and immediately thought of the framing of our own consitution, and how long it actually took for the fore fathers to set the bill of rights into motion. Years and months crossed my mind. Washington and Jefferson almost never reached a total agreement. World peace under one complete government, had I thought would never work, because if it took two men as long as it did to reach one agreement, told me that world peace  would never completely work, because of too many differences of opinion. Then it occured to me that one complete world government was an idea, set into the minds by idealists, and which one was more concrete?  A government that worked if we only use what was originally set in motion, or a government that we dream of having.

   I then turn to product and source of the governmental machine. The source and product of the governmental machine follows Blackstone's theory to locomotion, and governmental principles.  The constitution is not the product of ideas that have never been set into motion by the machine. The constitution is the source itself. And the source itself, was framed for only man and woman to marry.  I like to consider the Constitution as the source of my individual freedoms and immunities, through legitimation, with undoubted restraints to what my liberties and immunities really are-and why they are the way they are. .We all have restraints to living in any country. Without restraints, means no sense in a governmental machine to begin with.

      For a moment, I thought about corn liquor, and moonshine distilling. Yes, if I had thought about it for a moment, the government simply denies me the license to profit from corn liquor. But,  if I read the constitution without restraints, I would realize that the fourteenth amendment clause, says I should be allowed equal protection for profit.. But then again, I don't argue and complain because I can't open a distillery for my own profit,  Because I know there is a governing factor to the governmental machine.

     Then I thought what would make more common sense. Wouldn't it be just as much sense  for the government  to help single fathers raising children, without dear moms, as it would be to give to the passion of unnatural wedlock, where children have to be created in some other way than just the natural birds, and the bees.  Even though this issue could pose as an embarrasment to my gender as a natural hetherosexual male as a single father, I choose not to lo let it, because its really an embarrassment on the governments behalf.

A liberal attack would be to say that man and woman are supposed to stay married throughout life. Yes, may be true, but we were all humans born into a world of sin, and God gave us the option to repent for sin. Although I think that God hates sin, he gives us to option to ask for forgiveness. And that, to me, is the misconception of a liberal attack falsely accusing me of being right wing.