Skip to main content

This Might Take A While…




  In 1982, Gregory Watson was trying to find a topic for writing assignment for a government class that he was taking at the University of Texas at Austin.  While researching the Equal Rights Amendment, Watson came across documentation of another unratified constitutional amendment dating back to the 1st Congress in 1789 that had been authored by James Madison.  Madison's proposal would delay congressional pay raises until the electorate got a chance to respond.  Intrigued, Watson switched the subject of his paper and researched what was a still-pending constitutional amendment, despite 192 years having elapsed. Watson's paper argued that—unlike the ERA—the 1789 amendment had no deadline within which the nation's state legislatures must have acted upon it and that it could belatedly become part of the U.S. Constitution.  His report recommended—on policy grounds—that the amendment should be ratified, as delaying changes of congressional salary would be beneficial against corruption.  His instructor didn't think too highly of his work, giving Watson a 'C', explaining that he had failed to make a convincing case that the amendment was still subject to being approved and that the topic was irrelevant to modern government.  In short, she said, his thesis was "unrealistic."

  Maybe it was “unrealistic” for that professor but it wasn’t for the Archivist of the United States, when it was certified that the amendment's ratification was completed. You see after ten years of work, he convinced enough state legislature to ratify the amendment.  His work led to the adoption of the 27th amendment in 1992.  An idea that was once forgotten and dismissed, given enough time became part of the Constitution.

  I think it is part of human nature to think that after enough time something can be forgotten about.  Promises are dismissed, warnings are ignored, and commandments are scoffed at.  When reminded of those things, there will always be those that dismiss them because they came about long ago.  Since the world still has kept spinning, they believe nothing is ever going to change; their actions will never be called into account, those old ideas are irrelevant.  This isn’t however what we are told in the word of God.  2nd Peter 3:8-9 tells us, “But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”  A length of time doesn’t change the promises of God.  Rather than try to dismiss his command by citing delay, we need to realize that no matter the time, God’s law is still in effect.  Ten years, two hundred years or ten thousand years won’t keep God’s promises from happening.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I Know All Those Words, But That Sentence Makes No Sense To Me

  Let’s say you travel back in time six hundred years or so.  Luckily, you happen across a fellow that speaks English.  Upon hearing your tale, he describes you as nice, smart, and handsome.  Wouldn’t you feel good?   You shouldn’t.  As Sol Steinmetz in his book, Semantics Antics , explains; Nice originally meant someone who was foolish, ignorant, senseless, or absurd (middle English 1300). Smart for the first 300 years of its use meant causing pain, sharp, cutting, or severe, a sense that survives in the idiom "smart as a whip.” Handsome wasn’t complimentary. When coined around 1425, it just meant easily handled; it didn’t have its current positive connotation until 1590.   You might think he said you were a kind, intelligent, good looking bloke, when in reality he said you were a foolish pain easily dealt with.   Words have an annoying habit of changing meaning over time in the same language and it becomes even more compli...
Post a Comment
Read more

Master Your Self

  In a contest for the toughest president of the United States, it would be hard to go against Theodore Roosevelt.  He was known for his “manly” pursuits hunting big game, climbing the Matterhorn, participating in boxing match while president. (These weren’t play fights, he lost the vision on one eye because of them!)  Once before he was about to give a speech an assassin shot him in the chest.  Roosevelt refused to go to a hospital and insisted on giving his speech, still wearing his blood-soaked shirt!   Teddy might have become tough but he wasn’t born that way.  He was a sickly child that suffered from severe asthma that almost proved fatal.  As was a young boy, doctors discovered that he had a weak heart, and advised him to get a desk job and not strain himself.  He was homeschooled because of his many illnesses and spent most of his time indoors.   But then as a teen his father, whom Teddy Roosevelt revered, told his son, “ ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Does A Lion Tamer Use a Chair?

  Ok, I know you have seen the image. A lion tamer enters in the cage of the beast and forces it to obey his commands using a whip, a gun and a chair. Now you can see how the whip and gun could come in handy but you might be wondering why a chair would intimidate an animal as powerful as a lion? Clyde Beatty taming a lion with a chair   It's not that the lion is afraid of the chair -- it's that the lion is confused by the chair. Cats are single-minded, and the points of the chair's four legs bobbing around confuse the lion enough that it loses its train of thought. Casually put, the chair distracts the lion from wanting to claw the lion tamer's face off. The powerful creature could destroy the chair in moment’s notice but instead it is distracted into submission.  It’s not too much different than how Satan controls us today. By the power of God we could overcome anything that he would use to subdue us. We can overcome the evil one (1 st John 2:13-14). ...
Post a Comment
Read more