I would recommenced reading the federalist papers, all 85 of them. When reading them keep in context that many if not most people were reluctant to have a central government between the states. Without these documents the constitution would not have passed.

Also a item of note, Jefferson was against a centralized government and felt the articles of confederation were to strong. The articles provided a very week central government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of...

Another thing to wonder about is if Jefferson had not been in France as a delegate of the US at the time of the constitutional debate would it have passed? He would have mustered everything he had to stop it, and I think he likely would have. He predicted that even the articles of confederation would eventually lead to a strong central authority usurping the freedom of man.

In the context of the times I would have been on the side of James Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and George Washington who were the "big government" guys of the day.

It is interesting to note that James Madison switched sides after the constitution was formed, from a person who was fighting for central government to Jefferson's closest ally in being a watch dog to keep the federal government from over extending its reach.

John Jay I do not kwow what is later attitudes were.

Alexander Hamilton after serving for 6 years in Washington's Cabinet resigned. In his resignation letter he stated that he had developed currency, a bank and foriegn affairs policy for the country and that he thought the federal government now had all the powers it would need for the future, no further powers were needed. When the progressive big government types of today quote his federalist papers to increase the size of government, they fail to recognize the rather important statement by their author stating that the feds have all the power they need 6 years into the Washington US administration.

Washington never made the power grabs that Hamilton did, but seemed to be in agreement with him based on his actions. The first 6 years had been about setting up basic systems needed to have a country. The last two had no new systems or departments but operated more as business as usual.

It looks like they merely omit things in the textbooks rather than discuss them. Some years ago, I noticed in my granddaughter's text book that they devoted 1/2 page to Abe Lincoln!

Thanks; I look at it as akin to the blue pill/red pill choice.

Very true. However (I love that word) since freedom was, in effect, taken away, the Constitution re-constituted it.

Hey Shrug. I was talking to a customer who home schooled her kids. I wanted to ask her if she taught the Constitution and American History or if she stuck to the required material. I got busy and had to cut our conversation short. What are your plans for your grandson?

Not sure how we allowed the educational system to get away with this but we should start teaching it again. I wonder what the debate would sound like? Would the left oppose it or insist on twisting the facts and teaching some "progressive" version of history.

What a different perspective students were given back then. Kudos to you Flootus for going out and getting the information the schools stopped teaching.

Hello DeanStriker,
Indeed, it may have been the best ever agreed to by any group of men, but it was not perfect. Of course getting so many to agree...that is the problem isn't it? “I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well-administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”
― Benjamin Franklin
Franklin was right as usual. Still if we could go back to the beginning we could have another tolerable few hundred years... and now, without slavery, avoid the civil war...
Respectfully,
O.A.

Great post. I had a civics class in High School in the early 70's in the already horribly liberal State of Massachusetts. What a joke. The entire format was for the teacher to put his feet up on the desk and read current events from today's newspaper. He would "encourage debate" but you can guess where it was going.

Fortunately I had educated myself, on my own time outside of the public indoctrination system on rationality and reason by reading everything by Ayn Rand, including her newsletter, I could get my hands on. But still woefully ignorant on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I had one good teacher that taught the court system and some of the jurisdictional separation of powers. Guess what? He was good and was a native born German. From there, the next bit of education came from a history class at the University of New Hampshire. The professor required the students to memorize the Declaration of Independence and write it out on paper as a final without reference to anything. Nice.

It wasn't until the 1990's when I got involved in the Sagebrush Rebellion in the West that I really got an education on the Constitution and the intended structure of our government. In my research, I found an old used book in a bookstore in Fallon, Nevada. It was a civics textbook for High School written by a Constitutional professor from an institution in Iowa. Published in 1894. What a gold mine of perspective. Relevant to the Sagebrush Rebellion was the chapter on new States and Statehood. At that time the next anticipated new State to be entered into the Union was Utah, which did occur in 1896. In it the author wrote: When Utah finally achieves statehood, the burden of managing the public lands within its sovereign boundary shall be relieved of the general government and passed to the State. Just imagine, every high schooler 100 years ago using this popular textbook knew that the feds can't retain authority over the public lands within a State. And now it is a huge battle of usurpation.

Hello Herb7734,
Yes. Monumental and unmatched in human history.
Regards,
O.A.

Yes, had Jefferson been home to attend and to lead that Convention, the Constitution would have been better. But anytime 56 men gather, each with the special views and interests, problems are assured.

The first problem is that the Constitution created yet another Government of Force destined to fail. Since to government means to control, can we really expect otherwise?

I did some time ago an article outlining more in detail, not nearly as extensive as it could be, but I'll ask our self-proclaimed Objectivists to read it:
http://no-ruler.net/3460/failures-of-the...

Hello LS, :)
Unalienable!
Regards,
O.A.

Agreed, except we weren't "given" freedom. The founders were the first to recognise that freedom is something you're born with and their mission was to make that clear, keep it in tact, and to keep it from being taken away bit by bit. :)

Another good read is "Miracle in Philadelphia" by Catherine Drinker Bowen (1966).

The signing of the Constitution is one of, if not THE MOST important event in history. For the first time, people were given the freedom, and yet the responsibility of running their government through an ingenious system of checks and balances. If the USA survives and grows back into the country the Founders envisioned, it will be the most significant document in history. If the USA doesn't survive, it will likely be obscured into a seditious document by whoever is in power. The Constitution and The Delaration of Independence should be taught in high school for and entire semester along with the historical setting that aided in its creation. Sadly, most Americans couldn't tell you its contents, let alone quote a single sentence from it.

Re-read Thomas Jefferson for better ideas. Suffice it to say that when a county in OH voted 140% for Osama and Philadelphia voted 110%, and that was allowed to stay, one must be delusional (no disrespect intended) to continue to believe in the integrity of the voting process in the US. Oh, add to that multiple documented cases of individual parasites voting multiple times! The Soviet Union had greater respect for its citizens and a greater estimation of their intelligence - all "votes" there were between 95 and 98%; they never exceeded 100!

I just found it up. It's The Summer of 1787.

That was excellent. I was thinking that they would debate for two years and then proudly announce that they had reached a tentative non binding agreement on when a potential framework for a Constitution would be in place but the final details still needed to be worked out. The 400,000 page agreement, while still incomplete, is an impressive and positive first step.

Do you have a better idea? Perhaps we could just let Obama select his replacement instead of wasting all that time and effort in voting. And maybe Nevada could just let Harry Jr. take over for the senile old man.

Good one. :-)

You still believe in voting? And leprechauns?

I've noted this to others; I am apparently the only one to notice it.

Thank you.

If our current congress wrote the constitution:

"OMG this is soooo boring butt here it gos LOLZ!! We the congress will do whatever the prez wants as long as we still get our $$ and free stuff, we ken also pic how much money we make and get AT LEAST 180 vaca days each year. Reading laws is sooo boring and takes waaaaaay too much time, so all future laws should be presented to us in picture format DUH! We the people blah blah whatever GTG fundraise!! OH NO, that's more than 117 char Twitter limit ;)"

Thanks for another interesting read to add to my list. For all of the "well known" ideas and influences out there, there are always more that have either been lost or not given their proper due.

Interesting that you should mention Franklin and the Native American councils. It is equally interesting (but not surprising I'm sure to anyone in The Gulch) how fiction can enlighten you about history and the real world.

On the recommendation of a fellow Objectivist friend and lover of mystery novels, I got hooked on Tony Hillerman's great series involving the Navajo Tribal Police.

That led me to consider the utter stupidity of lumping "Native Americans" into one homogenous group. In general, we are so ignorant about just the numbers of separate tribes, their geographic area of influence, their different cultures and degrees of "civility", for lack of a better term. Some, no doubt, were the primitive warring savages portrayed in popular culture, but many, if not most, were peaceful and some very advanced in their ideologies, to the point of a few having "Constitutions" which the Founders may well have been aware of. And yes, I'm aware that there is controversy about this...but I find this worthy of consideration...let each individual decide...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law_o...

Hey, sorry for the rant, but it POETS Day...