The Southern Jewish Weekly

We, The People
BY DAVID SCHWARTZ
(Copyright, 1948, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Inc.)

The draft of the proposed constitution of Israel begins with the same as the American constitution: "We, the people ..."
The Israeli draft has not yet been finally ratified, but it may be assumed, with things moving as speedily as they are in Israel, that it will not take as long to adopt the Israeli constitution as it took the United States to adopt its own.
The very term, "We, the people," was much debated. What do they mean? cried Patrick Henry, by saying "We, the people," instead of "We, the States."
Patrick Henry declared that this indicated that the new constitution would, practically speaking, abolish the states. When we remember all the controversy of that day with respect to the Constitution and everything else about the making of the new nation, it should teach us not to be too worried when we hear of controversy in and about Israel.
Some of the delegates to the Philadelphia convention in 1787 left in the middle of the convention, feeling sure that it would be impossible to reach an agreement.
The aged Franklin who had never been much of a religious man offered a motion that the sessions of the convention be opened with prayer, in the hope that somehow this would be conducive to harmony. If a sparrow cannot fall save it be by God, said Franklin, we recall that this same Franklin as a boy was very economical of prayer—he suggested to his father that a prayer be recited before the barrel of sausage instead of before each individual dish—we may possibly get some realization of the difficult situation at Philadelphia.
When the convention finally succeeded in mustering sufficient votes to adopt the draft, the end of the battle was still a long way off. The Constitution had to be ratified by each of the thirteen original states and every line of it was microscopically dissected.
In the attack, no holds were barred. In Massachusetts criticism was levelled at it on the ground that it contained no mention of God. A preacher delegate offered this criticism. A lawyer delegate defending it, pointed out that one of the books of the Bible was marked by a similar omission.
The preacher delegate challenged the lawyer and offered to change his vote, if the lawyer
(Continued on Page Six)