No doubt the author of the original article used the terms that he used in order to catch people’s attention.

This is particularly the case with slavery and the original Constitution. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention were very careful NOT to endorse slavery and not to imply that slavery was officially sanctioned by the Constitution — so careful, in fact, that they avoided using the term “slavery” in the original Constitution.

Most of the signers of the Constitution were against slavery. In fact, most of the Founding Fathers (including – interestingly and ironically – many slaveowning Founders) were opposed to slavery.

The Founding Fathers were a generation of men that grew up into and inherited a society that practiced race-based slavery. The first slave ships came to Jamestown several generations BEFORE Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, et al were born! Remember that. It was the founding generation that began to take steps to UNDO slavery.

As Abraham Lincoln so eloquently and CORRECTLY argued in the 1850s and 60s, the Founding Fathers hated slavery and put it on the “road to ultimate extinction.” The Founding Fathers did that!

Sadly, the cotton gin came along – and the Deep South veered off the Founders’ vision to gradually abolish slavery. And North and South grew apart — and, well, the rest is history.

Proportional representation is an interesting concept.

I dont think the Constitution ought to be adheared to rigidly, we are the custodians of today, we have to remember these people were only human.

I persanally see a safer course with proportional representation in a democracy, each vote counting, than all the power in a handful of men, who, we have no idea are representing our wishes or not.

Mosquito – you and I agree.

That’s a good point Vivian. What concerns me is that the current White House residents prefer regression not adaptation. I surely don’t want any structural changes to our constitution or our government with the current puppets of the global corporate elitists running the show.

It’s also worth noting that I agree with Kurlansky’s argument as a matter of principle (we have not fulfilled our potential as a nation; we have not fully lived up to our ideals). Although I think his argument suffers from an oversimplified view of history.

The Founding Fathers were “the establishment” in only in a very limited sense. In relation to the English parliament they were not. In relation to women and some minority groups they were. In relation to some of their fellow colonists they were and they were not (the colonial governments were elective–although limited to land-holding men).

Unlike Kurlansky I also wouldn’t invoke Robespierre’s example unless it was as a cautionary tale against the excesses of revolutionary zeal (the contrast between the French and American Revolutions is a very instructive exercise). In the case of Steinbeck, I admire him as a novelist, not as a political thinker.

JTPERP – Slavery & women’s rights were the two examples that came to mind as I was writing. No doubt the founders were men of their time, the key being “their time.” I do not impose 21st century standards on them; I only point out that if the Constitution were static, we would not have ever ended slavery nor would we have women’s rights.

I really do think that Jefferson (and the others) understood that there would be situations that they could not anticipate.

The simple fact that there were very open-debates about slavery during the Constitutional Convention suggest that many of the Founders followed their reasoning to its logical conclusion. Expedience trumped principle in the case of slavery and end result was the bloodiest war in our history.

If you read the Notes from the Constitutional Convention (compiled from James Madison’s notes); or the Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison)–it’s hard not to have tremendous respect for the deliberation and good-faith that these leaders and thinkers brought to the debate. These reads are incredibly demanding, but also tremendously rewarding. I doubt that anyone could come away from reading these books without having a much greater appreciation for what these guys accomplished in the late 1780s.

As far the living Constitution versus strict Constructionist attitudes go, my take is that you have to look first to the Founders intent. When you’re talking about issues such as separation of powers, or the concept of co-equal branches of government–the Founders arguments are still light years ahead of those who rail against an indepedent judiciary with lifetime appointments.

On a number of issues–abortion, uses of symbolic speech (e.g. flag burning)–the Founders are completely silent. A strict constructionist view only takes you so far–and no one–not even the so-called strict constructionists apply their philosophy consistently (e.g. Gore v. Bush 2000 doesn’t even come close to passing a strict constructionist smell test–even though Scalia voted with the “activist” majority).

I agree with your point that the Great Experiment is organic and ever changing. At the same time, I firmly believe that you have to fully understand what you’re discarding before you discard it (something that the Bush administration should heed in reference to signing statements and its NSA programs). You have to look to history and learn from both the successes and failures of the past. It’s always important to view ideas and actions in context.

BTW, there’s a company in Chantilly, VA, called the Teaching Company which produces some excellent audio and video lecture series on these topics (e.g. “History of the Supreme Court” by Prof. Peter Irons of the University of San Diego and another one called “American Ideals” by Prof. Daniel Robinson from Oxford U). They’re at http://www.teach12.com.

And what an author! I certainly wouldn’t look for political analysis from the guy who offered the world such scholarly work as “Salt: A World History” and “Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World.”

Why didn’t you pull this jewel from his article? “The U.S. offers the worst health care program, one of the worst public school systems and the worst benefits for workers.”

Do you agree with that?

He whines about America and the “rut” we are in, and how much better the economies of Europe are (yeah, he’s a brilliant economist who happens to disagree with every actual economist in the world).

And he waxes eloquently about American Indians as if George Washington was Hitler. I was waiting for him to blame Benjamin Franklin for global warming.

He’s a flake.

Further, I believe I linked to the current Virginia constiution that contains the information regarding the separation of church and state.

Finally, I think it is quite clear that a strict interpretation of the constitution – especially in light of the changes that I have mentioned – is not something that I believe is appropriate.

I thought conservatives were supposed to be an “attack the message not the messenger” group?

You don’t seem to mind quoting the 18th century writings of those “sexist, slave-owning 18th century white men in wigs and breeches” when the issue is religion and politics, as seen by your post just a few days ago.