• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Impedance of the American Constitution

TDGonDP

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 11, 2018
Messages
328
Reaction score
116
Location
Brooks, Alberta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Americans take pride in how their 1787 constitution has shaped their country and the world. The various freedoms—speech, association, religion, and others—enshrined in the document provided a new and beneficial relationship between the citizen and its state. The capability of the citizenry to vote out a foolish or corrupt government was a unique achievement. America truly was the first nation to practice western democracy as we know it today, which helped bring creativity, opportunity, and prosperity to its people. And the principles of this document have found their ways into many other political charters around the world.

But so enthralled are the Americans with their social engineering invention that they tend to readily forget some of the history behind the building of the constitution. When this history is examined a little closer, one realizes that the constitution was not the perfect document created by perfect people in a perfect process.

Even by the world's standards today, the American colonies were not badly governed by the British. Yes, there were some unfair laws and bad governors, but these conditions still happen in western democracies. Relatively speaking, most Americans of the 1700s had a pretty good society under British rule. And Americans at that time were far from united in their quest for independence from that rule.

While freedom was a keystone in the constitution, about half of the founding fathers were slave owners. The other half did not have the political will to abolish slavery at the birth of this nation. As well, women were to have no roles in government, even as voters. These unprogressive philosophies can only mean the thinking behind the constitution was not as progressive as the myth portrays.

While property rights were better enshrined under American law, there were certainly no property rights for aboriginal Americans whose traditional lands were confiscated for the next century. Another group that had no property rights was the supporters of the British crown, driven from their American wealth to Canada and Britain by unofficial state sanctioned terrorism. These loyalists neither had freedom of political expression nor the right to legally defend themselves while these very freedoms were being drafted into the constitution.

The constitution was not created out of thin air. A lot was borrowed from the British system of governance—and some of this was improved on. One improvement was based on the founding fathers' disdain for political parties: the electoral college was designed to elect a non-partisan head of state. Yet less than 40 years after the constitution was ratified, political parties became the vehicles for ambitious citizens to be elected as state and national legislators, thus diluting the original intention of this innovative institution.

The drafting of the constitution was not done by independent thinkers coming to a unified and unique conclusion. Expedient deals were struck and compromises were made to bring the 13 states together under one national government. Sound logical philosophy did not always influence the drafting.

Whenever the American constitution has been proffered as the ultimate social engineering tool, all the negative aspects of the building of the American constitution are made forgotten. This creates the illusion of an infallible document, above any serious reproach or criticism. Hence there is no need to discuss alternative models of governance that have different processes to elect public officials and give them different tools to make public decisions. How will we in the 21st century ever be able to move past this 18th century social invention?
 
Americans take pride in how their 1787 constitution has shaped their country and the world. The various freedoms—speech, association, religion, and others—enshrined in the document provided a new and beneficial relationship between the citizen and its state. The capability of the citizenry to vote out a foolish or corrupt government was a unique achievement. America truly was the first nation to practice western democracy as we know it today, which helped bring creativity, opportunity, and prosperity to its people. And the principles of this document have found their ways into many other political charters around the world.

But so enthralled are the Americans with their social engineering invention that they tend to readily forget some of the history behind the building of the constitution. When this history is examined a little closer, one realizes that the constitution was not the perfect document created by perfect people in a perfect process.

Even by the world's standards today, the American colonies were not badly governed by the British. Yes, there were some unfair laws and bad governors, but these conditions still happen in western democracies. Relatively speaking, most Americans of the 1700s had a pretty good society under British rule. And Americans at that time were far from united in their quest for independence from that rule.

While freedom was a keystone in the constitution, about half of the founding fathers were slave owners. The other half did not have the political will to abolish slavery at the birth of this nation. As well, women were to have no roles in government, even as voters. These unprogressive philosophies can only mean the thinking behind the constitution was not as progressive as the myth portrays.

While property rights were better enshrined under American law, there were certainly no property rights for aboriginal Americans whose traditional lands were confiscated for the next century. Another group that had no property rights was the supporters of the British crown, driven from their American wealth to Canada and Britain by unofficial state sanctioned terrorism. These loyalists neither had freedom of political expression nor the right to legally defend themselves while these very freedoms were being drafted into the constitution.

The constitution was not created out of thin air. A lot was borrowed from the British system of governance—and some of this was improved on. One improvement was based on the founding fathers' disdain for political parties: the electoral college was designed to elect a non-partisan head of state. Yet less than 40 years after the constitution was ratified, political parties became the vehicles for ambitious citizens to be elected as state and national legislators, thus diluting the original intention of this innovative institution.

The drafting of the constitution was not done by independent thinkers coming to a unified and unique conclusion. Expedient deals were struck and compromises were made to bring the 13 states together under one national government. Sound logical philosophy did not always influence the drafting.

Whenever the American constitution has been proffered as the ultimate social engineering tool, all the negative aspects of the building of the American constitution are made forgotten. This creates the illusion of an infallible document, above any serious reproach or criticism. Hence there is no need to discuss alternative models of governance that have different processes to elect public officials and give them different tools to make public decisions. How will we in the 21st century ever be able to move past this 18th century social invention?

First why would I want too? Second there is the amendment process. So as an American I am good. Its not perfect but it works for the most part for me.
 
Americans take pride in how their 1787 constitution has shaped their country and the world...

...The drafting of the constitution was not done by independent thinkers coming to a unified and unique conclusion. Expedient deals were struck and compromises were made to bring the 13 states together under one national government. Sound logical philosophy did not always influence the drafting.

Whenever the American constitution has been proffered as the ultimate social engineering tool, all the negative aspects of the building of the American constitution are made forgotten. This creates the illusion of an infallible document, above any serious reproach or criticism. Hence there is no need to discuss alternative models of governance that have different processes to elect public officials and give them different tools to make public decisions. How will we in the 21st century ever be able to move past this 18th century social invention?

1. It does not matter what you consider the situation with England to have been prior to the Revolution, it happened. Done deal.

2. No one said the Constitution was a perfect document, that is why there were several methods of amending it included in it's creation (which have been used 17 times after it was originally ratified.)

3. Our government may have been an 18th Century invention, but this "invention" has worked and worked well for over 200 years (that's through the 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries) precisely because it is simple and elegant in it's systems.

So please don't lecture us from the platform of your British parliamentary system, where your "figurehead" is still a monarch sitting in Buckingham Palace while your Prime Minister is as changeable as a pair of underwear if his "ruling" Party loses faith in him/her.
 
Americans take pride in how their 1787 constitution has shaped their country and the world. The various freedoms—speech, association, religion, and others—enshrined in the document provided a new and beneficial relationship between the citizen and its state. The capability of the citizenry to vote out a foolish or corrupt government was a unique achievement. America truly was the first nation to practice western democracy as we know it today, which helped bring creativity, opportunity, and prosperity to its people. And the principles of this document have found their ways into many other political charters around the world.

But so enthralled are the Americans with their social engineering invention that they tend to readily forget some of the history behind the building of the constitution. When this history is examined a little closer, one realizes that the constitution was not the perfect document created by perfect people in a perfect process.

Even by the world's standards today, the American colonies were not badly governed by the British. Yes, there were some unfair laws and bad governors, but these conditions still happen in western democracies. Relatively speaking, most Americans of the 1700s had a pretty good society under British rule. And Americans at that time were far from united in their quest for independence from that rule.

While freedom was a keystone in the constitution, about half of the founding fathers were slave owners. The other half did not have the political will to abolish slavery at the birth of this nation. As well, women were to have no roles in government, even as voters. These unprogressive philosophies can only mean the thinking behind the constitution was not as progressive as the myth portrays.

While property rights were better enshrined under American law, there were certainly no property rights for aboriginal Americans whose traditional lands were confiscated for the next century. Another group that had no property rights was the supporters of the British crown, driven from their American wealth to Canada and Britain by unofficial state sanctioned terrorism. These loyalists neither had freedom of political expression nor the right to legally defend themselves while these very freedoms were being drafted into the constitution.

The constitution was not created out of thin air. A lot was borrowed from the British system of governance—and some of this was improved on. One improvement was based on the founding fathers' disdain for political parties: the electoral college was designed to elect a non-partisan head of state. Yet less than 40 years after the constitution was ratified, political parties became the vehicles for ambitious citizens to be elected as state and national legislators, thus diluting the original intention of this innovative institution.

The drafting of the constitution was not done by independent thinkers coming to a unified and unique conclusion. Expedient deals were struck and compromises were made to bring the 13 states together under one national government. Sound logical philosophy did not always influence the drafting.

Whenever the American constitution has been proffered as the ultimate social engineering tool, all the negative aspects of the building of the American constitution are made forgotten. This creates the illusion of an infallible document, above any serious reproach or criticism. Hence there is no need to discuss alternative models of governance that have different processes to elect public officials and give them different tools to make public decisions. How will we in the 21st century ever be able to move past this 18th century social invention?

There is an amendment process... The constitution is able to be changed. Did you not know this?

It's a government governed by the people, the people need to overwhelmingly agree to change the constitution(And it's happened many times throughout our history). You, or anyone like you who may have a disgruntled view about whatever in the constitution, need to convince the majority of the American public before you force your own vision on everyone else.

And no, the American Constituion is the first of it's kind.... and of course it borrowed wisdom from British and Western history law... they didn't get everything wrong lol
 
Americans take pride in how their 1787 constitution has shaped their country and the world. The various freedoms—speech, association, religion, and others—enshrined in the document provided a new and beneficial relationship between the citizen and its state. The capability of the citizenry to vote out a foolish or corrupt government was a unique achievement. America truly was the first nation to practice western democracy as we know it today, which helped bring creativity, opportunity, and prosperity to its people. And the principles of this document have found their ways into many other political charters around the world.

But so enthralled are the Americans with their social engineering invention that they tend to readily forget some of the history behind the building of the constitution. When this history is examined a little closer, one realizes that the constitution was not the perfect document created by perfect people in a perfect process.

Even by the world's standards today, the American colonies were not badly governed by the British. Yes, there were some unfair laws and bad governors, but these conditions still happen in western democracies. Relatively speaking, most Americans of the 1700s had a pretty good society under British rule. And Americans at that time were far from united in their quest for independence from that rule.

While freedom was a keystone in the constitution, about half of the founding fathers were slave owners. The other half did not have the political will to abolish slavery at the birth of this nation. As well, women were to have no roles in government, even as voters. These unprogressive philosophies can only mean the thinking behind the constitution was not as progressive as the myth portrays.

While property rights were better enshrined under American law, there were certainly no property rights for aboriginal Americans whose traditional lands were confiscated for the next century. Another group that had no property rights was the supporters of the British crown, driven from their American wealth to Canada and Britain by unofficial state sanctioned terrorism. These loyalists neither had freedom of political expression nor the right to legally defend themselves while these very freedoms were being drafted into the constitution.

The constitution was not created out of thin air. A lot was borrowed from the British system of governance—and some of this was improved on. One improvement was based on the founding fathers' disdain for political parties: the electoral college was designed to elect a non-partisan head of state. Yet less than 40 years after the constitution was ratified, political parties became the vehicles for ambitious citizens to be elected as state and national legislators, thus diluting the original intention of this innovative institution.

The drafting of the constitution was not done by independent thinkers coming to a unified and unique conclusion. Expedient deals were struck and compromises were made to bring the 13 states together under one national government. Sound logical philosophy did not always influence the drafting.

Whenever the American constitution has been proffered as the ultimate social engineering tool, all the negative aspects of the building of the American constitution are made forgotten. This creates the illusion of an infallible document, above any serious reproach or criticism. Hence there is no need to discuss alternative models of governance that have different processes to elect public officials and give them different tools to make public decisions. How will we in the 21st century ever be able to move past this 18th century social invention?

Nice essay. A minor point I think needs clarifying more so than correcting, but all in all fine job.
  • Red:
    • The "other half" suffered not from a paucity of political will but rather under the the very real prospect that asunder, the states/colonies that moved to abolish slavery could not parry England's effort to retake its colonies -- hell, together it was mostly the Moirae that allowed them in 1812 to do so -- and neither could those who hewed to slavery. The non-slavery-embracing colonies' Constitutional concession to forbear slavery in the union was borne out of need to solidify and build upon the gains of the Revolution -- something that could not have been brought to fruition were they to bifurcate their resources -- not out of abject lack of will to disabuse the union of slavery.
 
1. It does not matter what you consider the situation with England to have been prior to the Revolution, it happened. Done deal.

2. No one said the Constitution was a perfect document, that is why there were several methods of amending it included in it's creation (which have been used 17 times after it was originally ratified.)

3. Our government may have been an 18th Century invention, but this "invention" has worked and worked well for over 200 years (that's through the 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries) precisely because it is simple and elegant in it's systems.

So please don't lecture us from the platform of your British parliamentary system, where your "figurehead" is still a monarch sitting in Buckingham Palace while your Prime Minister is as changeable as a pair of underwear if his "ruling" Party loses faith in him/her.


1. The status of the average people in the colonies is important to understand the creation of this document. The constitution was very much a product of the elite of its times. It's sort of like letting today's CEOs writing the laws.

2. Agreed. Amending formulas are needed.

3. The constitution worked well because of other reasons. 1) Continental USA had a temperate climate. 2) The land was rich in resources, 3) the land was free for the taking, 4) "Going west" was an immense social relief valve, with many dissatisfied citizens being able to find new opportunities in other locations. Take away those attributes, the constitution won't really matter that much. For example, let's set up a new country in Antarctica, give it a copy of the American constitution, and see what happens in a century.

In terms of governance, the British trained its "white" colonies well. USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are all well established economies that give their citizens a lot of opportunities. We are all democracies where citizens can throw out its governors through an election. The British had established the principles of free elections before the American independence. The monarchy was already becoming a ceremonial role at that time. We cannot say today that USA is obviously a superior nation to Canada or the UK.

In a contrary manner, the former Spanish colonies have not done so well, despite having similar opportunities to develop these nations. The legacy of dictatorial governance of Spain was instilled in these new colonies.

In terms of creating a better society, coming from Britain is more important than the actual constitution.
 
There is an amendment process... The constitution is able to be changed. Did you not know this?

It's a government governed by the people, the people need to overwhelmingly agree to change the constitution(And it's happened many times throughout our history). You, or anyone like you who may have a disgruntled view about whatever in the constitution, need to convince the majority of the American public before you force your own vision on everyone else.

And no, the American Constituion is the first of it's kind.... and of course it borrowed wisdom from British and Western history law... they didn't get everything wrong lol

Forcing my vision is not my intention of this article. The public should indeed be brought onside if there are to be any significant changes on how we are governed.

My intention is to educate people about the historical errors that the popular myth portrays about the creating of the American Constitution. It is as much of a product of political expediency as it was about wisdom of how a society should be governed. Until Americans get around the myth, they can't move forward.

I gained a lot of insights from reading a book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me". The author lays bare the errors of early American history taught at the high school level. All the "negative events" are erased from this education, hence many Americans have a false sense of their own history. This contributes to where USA is today.
 
Nice essay. A minor point I think needs clarifying more so than correcting, but all in all fine job.
  • Red:
    • The "other half" suffered not from a paucity of political will but rather under the the very real prospect that asunder, the states/colonies that moved to abolish slavery could not parry England's effort to retake its colonies -- hell, together it was mostly the Moirae that allowed them in 1812 to do so -- and neither could those who hewed to slavery. The non-slavery-embracing colonies' Constitutional concession to forbear slavery in the union was borne out of need to solidify and build upon the gains of the Revolution -- something that could not have been brought to fruition were they to bifurcate their resources -- not out of abject lack of will to disabuse the union of slavery.

Agreed.

The American colonies did rightly fear that Britain could take them back one-by-one if they did not unite in a federation. The non-slave states felt that the union was more important than the slavery issue.

As well, there were economic issues as the states had difficulties in establishing a credible currency. Coming together to create a common currency from a "bigger country" helped stabilize the economies. Some of the founding fathers got really rich.
 
I would like to point out that Julius Caesar rode to his inauguration in a horse drawn cart as did George Washington.

131 years later the world has changed at light speed from horse power to steam power to gas to jet and to rocket propulsion. Our Constitution allowed mankind to throw off the chains of despots and become whatever they wanted to be. No, it's not perfect but it beats hell out of second place AND the whole world has benefited from it.
 
I would like to point out that Julius Caesar rode to his inauguration in a horse drawn cart as did George Washington.

131 years later the world has changed at light speed from horse power to steam power to gas to jet and to rocket propulsion. Our Constitution allowed mankind to throw off the chains of despots and become whatever they wanted to be. No, it's not perfect but it beats hell out of second place AND the whole world has benefited from it.

USA did enhance the principles of property rights, a free press, due process, rule of law, periodic elections, and many more features of western democracy. This all helped vault USA to being a leader in the world. But the Americans did not invent them out of thin air, as the myth tries to portray; they improved on the British example, which was the leading example of its day.

1844 is kind of an interesting year in technology. Samuel Morse put together the first practical telegraph and send the words "What hath God wrought". Since that time, technological advance has increased exponentially around the world. Each decade was a new technology age since 1844. I don't think we should give all credit to American Constitution for this change. It likely would have happened anyways. Europeans were quite active in science and commerce around the world. For example, Lord Rutherford, the father of modern chemistry, was not an American. To suggest that we would still be in same kind of coal age without the USA is misleading.

We can quibble about this matter more and not come to any resolution as to the real role of constitution to our modern age. But the real question we should be asking is: "What is USA teaching the world today?"
 
Agreed.

The American colonies did rightly fear that Britain could take them back one-by-one if they did not unite in a federation. The non-slave states felt that the union was more important than the slavery issue.

As well, there were economic issues as the states had difficulties in establishing a credible currency. Coming together to create a common currency from a "bigger country" helped stabilize the economies. Some of the founding fathers got really rich.

Red:
All the Founding Fathers -- the one's whose signatures we see on the Declaration, Articles and Constitution and the ones whose names we don't -- were quite well off to begin with. Indeed most of them, almost to a man, were in some way "to the manor born."

Hell, until Trump, George Washington was far and away the wealthiest man to ever be POTUS.
 
Red:
All the Founding Fathers -- the one's whose signatures we see on the Declaration, Articles and Constitution and the ones whose names we don't -- were quite well off to begin with. Indeed most of them, almost to a man, were in some way "to the manor born."

Hell, until Trump, George Washington was far and away the wealthiest man to ever be POTUS.

Thanks for all those links. They pretty much summarize what I have gleaned over the years.

When we look at the difficulties in travel of those times (stagecoach and sailing ship), we see immense time resources being put into the drafting the constitution. Only the wealthy could take the time off to attend all those constitutional meetings. But and far, most Americans were struggling to put food on the table and get the roof patched. They could not send their kids to schools of higher learning. For them, this was not a Golden Age. They were only watchers in the constitutional process.

What the Americans did well at that time was to provide social mobility for the more ambitious of the lower classes. Such people could get recognition and reward for their efforts. And the civil court system was centered on fairness, not on political connections. In contrast, aspiring people from the lower classes in Britain faced all sorts of obstacles in their quest for business and education. While some of the shackles were removed in early America (and if you were white and male), only a small minority of lower class people were able to rise higher. For every successful person of this demographic, there were 100 that kind of stayed where they started. Again, not a Golden Age for most of them. They worked hard and remained poor.

The Constitution really did not benefit the working poor demographic in the USA. A few got rich and maybe that is a sign of a better system. But it was still a hard life for most Americans.
 
USA did enhance the principles of property rights, a free press, due process, rule of law, periodic elections, and many more features of western democracy. This all helped vault USA to being a leader in the world. But the Americans did not invent them out of thin air, as the myth tries to portray; they improved on the British example, which was the leading example of its day.

1844 is kind of an interesting year in technology. Samuel Morse put together the first practical telegraph and send the words "What hath God wrought". Since that time, technological advance has increased exponentially around the world. Each decade was a new technology age since 1844. I don't think we should give all credit to American Constitution for this change. It likely would have happened anyways. Europeans were quite active in science and commerce around the world. For example, Lord Rutherford, the father of modern chemistry, was not an American. To suggest that we would still be in same kind of coal age without the USA is misleading.

We can quibble about this matter more and not come to any resolution as to the real role of constitution to our modern age. But the real question we should be asking is: "What is USA teaching the world today?"

I realize I was less than fully transparent, yes many changes were happening in the world at the time of the American Revolution. But to say our Constitution did not contribute to those changes also lacks complete veracity.

During the "Gilded Age" the American titans of industry not only made vast fortunes but they got laws passed that changed the game so that it wouldn't be as easy for others to compete with them. And that trend though far from linear has continued. The Money people have taken our Country in directions globally, to insure their success in wide ranging ventures, that we should never have been involved in and are the reason we are reviled in many areas around the world. But to find the Constitution lacking because of these machinations I find it a wonder that it has been able to keep them in check at all in spite of the subversion and circumvention of it's principals.

What are we teaching the world "TODAY". Like all Americans the world is holding it's breath to see if we can survive the inner turmoil and divisiveness that prevails in our Country. If we do it will be the strong fabric of Our Constitution that will hold us together. If we don't Our Nation and the whole world will plunge into a Dark Age of despotism and slavery like the world has never seen before.
 
Americans take pride in how their 1787 constitution has shaped their country and the world. The various freedoms—speech, association, religion, and others—enshrined in the document provided a new and beneficial relationship between the citizen and its state. The capability of the citizenry to vote out a foolish or corrupt government was a unique achievement. America truly was the first nation to practice western democracy as we know it today, which helped bring creativity, opportunity, and prosperity to its people. And the principles of this document have found their ways into many other political charters around the world.

But so enthralled are the Americans with their social engineering invention that they tend to readily forget some of the history behind the building of the constitution. When this history is examined a little closer, one realizes that the constitution was not the perfect document created by perfect people in a perfect process.

Even by the world's standards today, the American colonies were not badly governed by the British. Yes, there were some unfair laws and bad governors, but these conditions still happen in western democracies. Relatively speaking, most Americans of the 1700s had a pretty good society under British rule. And Americans at that time were far from united in their quest for independence from that rule.

While freedom was a keystone in the constitution, about half of the founding fathers were slave owners. The other half did not have the political will to abolish slavery at the birth of this nation. As well, women were to have no roles in government, even as voters. These unprogressive philosophies can only mean the thinking behind the constitution was not as progressive as the myth portrays.

While property rights were better enshrined under American law, there were certainly no property rights for aboriginal Americans whose traditional lands were confiscated for the next century. Another group that had no property rights was the supporters of the British crown, driven from their American wealth to Canada and Britain by unofficial state sanctioned terrorism. These loyalists neither had freedom of political expression nor the right to legally defend themselves while these very freedoms were being drafted into the constitution.

The constitution was not created out of thin air. A lot was borrowed from the British system of governance—and some of this was improved on. One improvement was based on the founding fathers' disdain for political parties: the electoral college was designed to elect a non-partisan head of state. Yet less than 40 years after the constitution was ratified, political parties became the vehicles for ambitious citizens to be elected as state and national legislators, thus diluting the original intention of this innovative institution.

The drafting of the constitution was not done by independent thinkers coming to a unified and unique conclusion. Expedient deals were struck and compromises were made to bring the 13 states together under one national government. Sound logical philosophy did not always influence the drafting.

Whenever the American constitution has been proffered as the ultimate social engineering tool, all the negative aspects of the building of the American constitution are made forgotten. This creates the illusion of an infallible document, above any serious reproach or criticism. Hence there is no need to discuss alternative models of governance that have different processes to elect public officials and give them different tools to make public decisions. How will we in the 21st century ever be able to move past this 18th century social invention?

Why would you want to?

Seems like the document is a good one. It limits the damage that can be done by the poorly considered actions of the short sighted do-gooders.
 
I realize I was less than fully transparent, yes many changes were happening in the world at the time of the American Revolution. But to say our Constitution did not contribute to those changes also lacks complete veracity.

During the "Gilded Age" the American titans of industry not only made vast fortunes but they got laws passed that changed the game so that it wouldn't be as easy for others to compete with them. And that trend though far from linear has continued. The Money people have taken our Country in directions globally, to insure their success in wide ranging ventures, that we should never have been involved in and are the reason we are reviled in many areas around the world. But to find the Constitution lacking because of these machinations I find it a wonder that it has been able to keep them in check at all in spite of the subversion and circumvention of it's principals.

What are we teaching the world "TODAY". Like all Americans the world is holding it's breath to see if we can survive the inner turmoil and divisiveness that prevails in our Country. If we do it will be the strong fabric of Our Constitution that will hold us together. If we don't Our Nation and the whole world will plunge into a Dark Age of despotism and slavery like the world has never seen before.


Thank you for answering the question honestly.

I am rereading the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov. In several places, he mentioned that democracy has only a shelf life of two or three centuries before it caves in on itself---and is replaced by some version of oligarchy. I find it strange that SF writers have all sorts of imagination for future societies, yet cannot invent a different form of governance than the kinds we see today.

America is indeed a paradox. A few years back, I read the Articles of Independence, which seems to be a summation of the atrocities the British inflicted on the 13 colonies. As I was reading, I could quickly recall historical incidents where USA interfered with other nations in the same way it was treated by British. Unfortunately, the constitution was not able to prevent these errant actions. And, as you say, these actions have caused a loss of credibility for the USA.

I would like to believe that USA is going to bumble along. Western democracy has a lot of checks and balances--and Mr. Trump seems to be abiding by them, as much as he does not like the rules or understand why they are there. In that sense, the constitution is working well. But I would say that 10% of Americans would quickly agree to replace the constitution with a Trump monarchy. This social/political force is not going away soon. Part of the problem is the poor education of Constitution at the high school level. It was not written by God. It was written by men who had faults and personal agendas.
 
More or most important was the Declaration of Independence; All men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
understanding that those same rights must be respected of others also.
It's too bad the founders didn't implement that ideal immediately to all. If they had, and if we still did today, then we would see the beauty of freedom.
 
Forcing my vision is not my intention of this article. The public should indeed be brought onside if there are to be any significant changes on how we are governed.

My intention is to educate people about the historical errors that the popular myth portrays about the creating of the American Constitution. It is as much of a product of political expediency as it was about wisdom of how a society should be governed. Until Americans get around the myth, they can't move forward.

I gained a lot of insights from reading a book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me". The author lays bare the errors of early American history taught at the high school level. All the "negative events" are erased from this education, hence many Americans have a false sense of their own history. This contributes to where USA is today.

I think that's BS honestly.... What "negative" events were erased from education?

Slavery? Uhhh no
Colonization? Uhhh no
All of it is spent in great detail in American schools.

Are you saying that there aren't large parts of American History and it's Constitution that are amazing and inspiring?

Don't tell me you are one of those people that are just an edge lord about everything...
 
Last edited:
Why would you want to?

Seems like the document is a good one. It limits the damage that can be done by the poorly considered actions of the short sighted do-gooders.


Why would I want to drastically alter the constitution?

Circa 1800, our understanding of chemistry was the pudding model. Scientists knew atoms were composed of charged particles, but believed the charges were equally distributed throughout the atom. They then tried to explain chemistry using that pudding model. Then circa 1900, Rutherford did some experiments that proved the positive charges were concentrated in the nucleus and negative charges occupied the periphery. The pudding model was thrown out, as the Rutherford model was much better at explaining things. Had we stuck with the pudding model, nuclear power would have never happened.

Science is full of examples of once-useful-at-the-time models to explain science are replaced by better models. The humanistic sciences have also been turned on their head several times. It seems strange that western democracy---a social engineering tool---cannot be challenged.

In my original post, I summarized that the drafting of the American Constitution was far from a pure and altruistic purpose, far from being written by pure and altruistic men. As well, the founding fathers had very little knowledge of psychology, sociology, and political science as these sciences were not formally invented or taught in those days.

The founding fathers got to their constitutional meetings by stage coach and sailing ship. They had no way of communicating with their home state as negotiations were on-going. They lived in a much different world than we do today.

To insist that we can do no better than the American founding fathers in creating another system of governance is very strange given that we have advanced in so many ways from the founding fathers. At best, we have advocates for elimination of the electoral college or campaign finance reform. But these are mere tinkerings with the current system, which would leave the basic 18th-century structure intact. We have been cowed into believing the American constitution is infallible.

In the original post, I alluded to the founding fathers having a disdain for political parties--as they watched the British politicians democratically wrestle with each other for personal advantage. This is one feature of the founding fathers' work that should have been enshrined in the constitution. But alas, they could not find the words to make it work. This is where we need to go.
 
I think that's BS honestly.... What "negative" events were erased from education?

Slavery? Uhhh no
Colonization? Uhhh no
All of it is spent in great detail in American schools.

Here's a link to the book. The author does a much better job of explaining how early US history is poorly taught in the high school, which then leads to mythology of the constitution. Many Americans never recover from this misunderstanding.

https://www.amazon.ca/s/?ie=UTF8&ke...argid=kwd-299008142380&ref=pd_sl_5jafxzk378_e
 
More or most important was the Declaration of Independence; All men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
understanding that those same rights must be respected of others also.
It's too bad the founders didn't implement that ideal immediately to all. If they had, and if we still did today, then we would see the beauty of freedom.

While the Americans did a lot better at delivering "freedom" to its common people than the British, the Americans still had a long ways to go. It seems the principles of Articles of Independence have been selectively applied, internally and externally.
 
First why would I want too? Second there is the amendment process. So as an American I am good. Its not perfect but it works for the most part for me.

I take it that you are OK with the result:

1. Two politically charged, large demographics calling each other fools, crooks, perverts, and imbeciles.
2. A stalled legislative process, not very capable of addressing previous and ineffective legislation or introducing new legislation.
3. Big money still having more influence than it deserves.
4. Media with some kind of agenda.
5. Another large demographic believing it is pointless to vote.

Yep, that sounds like a political shang-ra-lai to me too.
 
I take it that you are OK with the result:

1. Two politically charged, large demographics calling each other fools, crooks, perverts, and imbeciles.
2. A stalled legislative process, not very capable of addressing previous and ineffective legislation or introducing new legislation.
3. Big money still having more influence than it deserves.
4. Media with some kind of agenda.
5. Another large demographic believing it is pointless to vote.

Yep, that sounds like a political shang-ra-lai to me too.

Your a Canadian you wouldn't understand as you are a subject of the Crown.
Your a subject. I am not.
 
Americans take pride in how their 1787 constitution has shaped their country and the world. The various freedoms—speech, association, religion, and others—enshrined in the document provided a new and beneficial relationship between the citizen and its state. The capability of the citizenry to vote out a foolish or corrupt government was a unique achievement. America truly was the first nation to practice western democracy as we know it today, which helped bring creativity, opportunity, and prosperity to its people. And the principles of this document have found their ways into many other political charters around the world.

But so enthralled are the Americans with their social engineering invention that they tend to readily forget some of the history behind the building of the constitution. When this history is examined a little closer, one realizes that the constitution was not the perfect document created by perfect people in a perfect process.

Even by the world's standards today, the American colonies were not badly governed by the British. Yes, there were some unfair laws and bad governors, but these conditions still happen in western democracies. Relatively speaking, most Americans of the 1700s had a pretty good society under British rule. And Americans at that time were far from united in their quest for independence from that rule.

While freedom was a keystone in the constitution, about half of the founding fathers were slave owners. The other half did not have the political will to abolish slavery at the birth of this nation. As well, women were to have no roles in government, even as voters. These unprogressive philosophies can only mean the thinking behind the constitution was not as progressive as the myth portrays.

While property rights were better enshrined under American law, there were certainly no property rights for aboriginal Americans whose traditional lands were confiscated for the next century. Another group that had no property rights was the supporters of the British crown, driven from their American wealth to Canada and Britain by unofficial state sanctioned terrorism. These loyalists neither had freedom of political expression nor the right to legally defend themselves while these very freedoms were being drafted into the constitution.

The constitution was not created out of thin air. A lot was borrowed from the British system of governance—and some of this was improved on. One improvement was based on the founding fathers' disdain for political parties: the electoral college was designed to elect a non-partisan head of state. Yet less than 40 years after the constitution was ratified, political parties became the vehicles for ambitious citizens to be elected as state and national legislators, thus diluting the original intention of this innovative institution.

The drafting of the constitution was not done by independent thinkers coming to a unified and unique conclusion. Expedient deals were struck and compromises were made to bring the 13 states together under one national government. Sound logical philosophy did not always influence the drafting.

Whenever the American constitution has been proffered as the ultimate social engineering tool, all the negative aspects of the building of the American constitution are made forgotten. This creates the illusion of an infallible document, above any serious reproach or criticism. Hence there is no need to discuss alternative models of governance that have different processes to elect public officials and give them different tools to make public decisions. How will we in the 21st century ever be able to move past this 18th century social invention?

The Constitution was specifically the antithesis of a "social engineering tool." The entire idea was to limit power so that, among other things, the government would not be able to socially engineer anything.

Also, the idea of Constitutional "infallbility" is belied by the very existence of an amendment process within it.

I don't know who you're referring to as making the arguments you say they're making. Constitutionalists don't.
 
The Constitution was specifically the antithesis of a "social engineering tool." The entire idea was to limit power so that, among other things, the government would not be able to socially engineer anything.

Also, the idea of Constitutional "infallbility" is belied by the very existence of an amendment process within it.

I don't know who you're referring to as making the arguments you say they're making. Constitutionalists don't.

Western democracy, all of its various version, is a social engineering tool. It teaches people how to work together, settle differences, and voice their concern through non-violent means. Even Mr. Trump has some of his natural instincts from running a private company curtailed as he is now POTUS.


Everytime we see an ad on TV, that seller is trying to social engineer us into buying their product. The tobacco companies were great social engineers in convincing us to partake in an expensive and unhealthy lifestyle. Internet trolls, from both the left and right, are also trying to social engineer us, hopefully scaring us away from a discussion. Having the police issue speeding tickets is another means of social engineering to change behavior.

I made friends with a Bosnian family fleeing a war. He got into a pizza shop, and he and his business partner had a little disagreement. Back in Bosnia, bullets or billy clubs would have been flying. But in Canada, they went through the civil claims court. That too is social engineering. Social engineering is happening all over, for both good and bad reasons.

If your local pastor is doing a good job from the pulpit, he is trying to teach you to be a better person. If you are a young person, and your peer group tells you to drink all this beer, that pressure is hard to resist. These too are social engineering.

There's social engineering everywhere, not just in government. If you believe that only government social engineers, that I would say that you have been social engineered to think that way.
 
Back
Top Bottom