Did the Founders Hate Government?

[malthaussen]

26. Also means "to bring out of shadow,"

or, less formally, to explicate. I don't see where we disagree -- given that we both attribute progress to the actions of people and not to lifeless documents. And I don't see where I claimed that we "got it right," or argued for American Exceptionalism, which is a fallacy.

As to the Constitution lacking flexibility, I have to ask what you expect of the Constitution? The process of amendment is certainly tedious, and intended to discourage swift and ill-thought amendment, although obviously it failed in the case of prohibition and its repeal. The Constitution is not expected to stand-in for statute or common law, although there are many who think it should do so. (In respect of which, Bob Heinlein does an interesting riff in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, where the Lunar Constitutional Convention keeps trying to add their own particular hobby-horses onto the fundamental rights of the constitution) I think of our Constitution as both a touchstone, and as a summation of quite a lot of argument about natural rights extending back throughout Western history. I also think it has been wilfully misinterpreted by men of ill-will: the very concept that fundamental rights could apply only to a minority sector of humanity is such an obvious fallacy that only mendacity can explain it.

So what is your complaint? That American government has failed to live up to its ideals? No argument there. That the American people have failed to formulate a consensus that acknowledges the dignity of all human beings and assures their life, liberty, and well-being? Again no argument -- but you can't blame the Constitution, the Ninth amendment covers all that. Our Founders did demonstrate one signal failing, and it is clear from the language of some sections of the Bill of Rights: they failed to forsee the mendacity that would characterize many of those who would later review their work. I mean, just look at the 8th amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." There is no way a man of good will could misinterpret that ruling -- and no way a man of ill will could not twist it to his own interpretation. Of course, there are those who will argue that such ambiguity was intentional. After all, there were men of ill-will in 1792, as well as 2012.

You ask where we went wrong? Ask me a hard one. We went wrong when we began to worship Mammon.

-- Mal