Was not designed to be a progressive document, as the writer noted...

It was written to codify certain specific differences between English law and what the Colonists wanted. Beyond that, it was designed to provide a level of stability and consistency to the activity of the national government...and 'stability and consistency' isn't necessarily Progressive.

In that time period, the Americans had a more Democratic republic to examine (the French Republic), and could see that an unrestrained democracy would have the majority voting itself 'bread and circuses'...in other words, voting itself privileges that in the end weren't rational for the time and the economy there. That anarchy, IMO, led to the power vacuum that Napoleon came in to fill.

Think about this: The Constitution held off the Civil War by at least 50 years, by providing a structure under which compromises could be reached to preserve public order, until party politics reached extremes wherein compromise was no longer possible.

So, certainly the Constitution hinders progress....it was designed to. But one needs to examine the reasoning *why* that design was what was implimented, and then decide for themselves whether that design was for the better or not (I'm of 2 minds....it was [and is] good and bad). Yes, it institutionalised Slavery, but did so in order to preserve the new Union until such time as the thorny issue could be revisited and rationally resolved. Unfortunately, Party politics pushed the rhetoric to such extremes that rational debate was no longer possible, leading to the Civil War....perhaps this may have been what Washington was trying to warn against?

-5.75,-4.05
"God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time." -- Robin Williams

Those who call for a total reexamination of the Constitution and the possibility of a new Constitutional Convention tend to assume that the outcome of such a process will be in the manner that they imagine. That is a very, very dangerous assumption. There will always be unexpected wild cards, unexpected players, and often there will be unthinkable and abhorrent unanticipated consequences.

The Constitution, all things considered, is a brilliant document. Less experienced hands may call for its replacement. Those of us who have seen unanticipated disasters in such a process will call for its careful amendment through a thoughtful, transparent and time-consuming process that allows compromise and sanity to prevail.

Channing
Ventura CA USA

... make the current Constitution work, we can't make any Constitution work, IMHO.

A number of left thinkers, most notably Gore Vidal, have for years called for a new constitutional convention to start over from scratch -- a possibility which our current Constitution provides some mostly untested provision for, in Article V.

Yes, the idea is scary. Looking around at the state of politics and critical thinking in the U.S. of A., the idea of creating a new constitution out of whole cloth scares the bejeebers out of me. And likewise, the end result of a Constitution that would be considerably easier to amend, which would be one of the main points of the exercise, also makes me very nervous.

That said, I think the events likely to unfold in the coming months and years will probably make this course not only worth the risk, but very widely seen as essential. I'm thinking of economic collapse driven in large part by resouce depletion. When civil order starts to break down and necessary reforms are continually being blocked by obstinant minorities, push will come to shove, we will all be clamoring for a new constitutional convention to create a more flexible and democratic government. The only alternative will be fascism.

Needs to study the state of English history from the 1500s through to the late 1700s, especially the loss of power of the Crown and the increase in Parliament's power, especially that of the House of Commons.

In the 1500s, the country was administered by the Lord Chancellor, from the woolsack. By the late 1700s the country was administered by the Prime Minister from the Commons. In the 1500s the Crown's power was absolute, by the late 1700s subordinated to Parliament.

The founders were keenly aware of this history, hence the "checks & balances" in the US Constitution, which were more of a check on the absolute power of the Crown, than pandering to slave owners.

Slavery was not under attack until the Oxford Movement in the 1820s. Slavery was not much regarded as evil in the late 1700s, except perhaps by a small minority. The items attributed to pandering to slave owners, are more for the split between the power of the rich (aristocracy) and the commons. Twas ever thus.

Some of the structures in the Constitution were inspired/cribbed from the Iriquois Nations. Ben Franklin spent a lot of time hanging out with them and was impressed.

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/FFchp3.html

“The Playboy reader invites a female acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Picasso, Nietzsche, jazz, sex.” - Hugh Hefner