[Dumb_Ox]

The big one in the constitution is that it was formed without a consciousness of political parties. Publius derided parties as "factions" in the Federalist Papers, while arguing that the Constitution would limit factional effects and produce statesmen of independent judgement. I don't think that was successful. For instance, if a president and a congressional majority are from the same party, there's no real limitation on factional capriciousness.

The Constitution itself recognizes its imperfections, leaving open the possibility for amendment.

As for the Declaration, I'm not sure much weight should be placed on its claims. It was written in what, one month's time?

First, it relies on "rights talk," a blunt instrument for any sort of political philosophizing. Second, it seems to change the Tory Divine Right of Kings to the Divine Right of the People. As with any sovereign, its high quality cannot always be presumed. A people, like a king, can become unfit to rule. The Declaration can keep that fearful possibility from even being considered, and so it seems to be a blind spot.

[Sam Cree]

I have no argument with the Declaration's rather brilliant assertion that the people have a divine right to be free. That concept is what separates Americans from all others, where the right to be free is considered to be a grant from the government rather than a right that they are born with. When we give up the idea that our freedom is not something we enjoy soley through the generosity of our rulers, we give up much of the basis for our special brand of freedom.

I think all of the founders understood that pure democracy and freedom aren't compatible.

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."