Gandalf wrote: ↑
The funny part is that the 18th century land and slave owning class which started the whole genocidal enterprise even enter these discussions at all.
Because historical revisionism is unhealthy, and discussing a document while in denial about who wrote it is a form of revisionism.
By being mindful of the fact that the Constitution was written by a bunch of 18th century colonial aristocrats whose chief mitigating virtue was that they subscribed to the newsletters of some then-forward-thinking political philosophers, a great deal about the Constitution, and when it should and should not be taken in a literalist way, is revealed.
For example, the Founders were terrified
of standing armies, for essentially stupid reasons albeit ones that had little to do with the stereotypical class-war narrative of why they were bad people. They didn't make allowances for extensive interstate commerce, because they were 18th century
people writing when most economic activity other than shipping stayed within like 20-30 miles of its source. They included an amendment process because they were colonial
aristocrats who knew their country was going to be changing, expanding, and developing in various ways. They wrote in separation of powers to a much higher degree than most European parliamentary democracies have because they had NO prior working models for the kind of republic they wanted to found, and were overly enthused with Montesquieu's misunderstanding of how the British system worked. And so on.
Awareness of authorship and willingness to mention authorship when discussing a document helps understand that document and place it in historical context. Trying to make the authors unpersons because they did bad things that the world hadn't globally acknowledged as bad yet will not help us accomplish anything, unless the goal is to proclaim the Year Zero.
LaCroix wrote: ↑
Although the idea that you base a society on the ideas of 18th century slave owners is kind of abhorrend, if you were to toss the US constitution today and let the current US government write a new one, you'd most likely get something worse...
The thing is, the Constitution is set up so that we can amend the abhorrent ideas out of existence (e.g. abolishing slavery). So after 230 years of that process, all that's left of the Founders' bad ideas are the merely bad
ideas, like presidential democracy as opposed to a parliamentary system.