The founders of the USA were not a unified block with the same sense of values. There was considerable discussion about slavery, equity (by whichever term serves), access to opportunity for all (even for women) among the people pondering freedom. They knew it would be imperfect. Some did want to keep the status quo. Some clearly wanted i…
The founders of the USA were not a unified block with the same sense of values. There was considerable discussion about slavery, equity (by whichever term serves), access to opportunity for all (even for women) among the people pondering freedom. They knew it would be imperfect. Some did want to keep the status quo. Some clearly wanted independence so that they could access the rich lands to the west that the British had reserved for Indigenous people. Some wanted to keep slaves. Not all supported all of these things. One thing they did agree on was that things would change, and so they made it possible. There are weaknesses in our Constitution, but there are remarkable strengths as well. The ability to change it is one of them.
Nevertheless, our imperfect democracy is now threatened by a minority party determined to make voting more difficult in such a way as to make it impossible for the majority party to govern. Both the Electoral College and the US Senate are institutions which, by their very nature, make it impossible for the vote of a Californian or a New Yorker to carry the same weight as that of a Wyomingite or an Alaskan. Our Constitution shows many signs of the compromises that needed to be made in order for it to be ratified by the founders, but so much in the USA has changed over the years that the document is no longer capable -- despite amendments -- of guaranteeing that essential legislation strongly desired by a large majority of Americans will become law. When 3/4 of the states are required to ratify amendments to the Constitution and Wyoming's 600,000 citizens are given the same weight as California's 40,000,000, something is screwed up. This is not democracy, it is not equitable, and it will lead to some very negative consequences, probably sooner than most Americans imagine.
The founders of the USA were not a unified block with the same sense of values. There was considerable discussion about slavery, equity (by whichever term serves), access to opportunity for all (even for women) among the people pondering freedom. They knew it would be imperfect. Some did want to keep the status quo. Some clearly wanted independence so that they could access the rich lands to the west that the British had reserved for Indigenous people. Some wanted to keep slaves. Not all supported all of these things. One thing they did agree on was that things would change, and so they made it possible. There are weaknesses in our Constitution, but there are remarkable strengths as well. The ability to change it is one of them.
Hello Annie. Everything you say is true. It is.
Nevertheless, our imperfect democracy is now threatened by a minority party determined to make voting more difficult in such a way as to make it impossible for the majority party to govern. Both the Electoral College and the US Senate are institutions which, by their very nature, make it impossible for the vote of a Californian or a New Yorker to carry the same weight as that of a Wyomingite or an Alaskan. Our Constitution shows many signs of the compromises that needed to be made in order for it to be ratified by the founders, but so much in the USA has changed over the years that the document is no longer capable -- despite amendments -- of guaranteeing that essential legislation strongly desired by a large majority of Americans will become law. When 3/4 of the states are required to ratify amendments to the Constitution and Wyoming's 600,000 citizens are given the same weight as California's 40,000,000, something is screwed up. This is not democracy, it is not equitable, and it will lead to some very negative consequences, probably sooner than most Americans imagine.