I don't know. I'd guess it is, in part, the direct election of Senators - and the founders are not at fault for that. If I could choose but one amendment to repeal, that would probably be the one.
But the grand scheme was always assumed to be imperfect, and was not expected to endure without change. The cryptic admonishment "A republic if you can keep it" comes to mind - and it's ours to preserve or ruin. Here I could rehash the civil war and reconstruction era, then throw some rocks at the early 20th century progressives, but you and I probably agree on most of what would be said. So I'll just say we can un-amend and we probably haven't done it enough.
No one should benefit from the punishment of crime. (And that which came after).
I sort of like the premise. But the spoils that will exist, and the question of just what to do with them, seem to have been left in a vacuum.
The major flaws, as I see them were: leaving slavery in place; amending the Constitution to allow direct election of Senators so that they no longer represented the interests of their State, and allowing FedGov to have direct access to people’s money through an income tax scheme.
The OTHER problem I see is that the citizenry of the times did NOT either hang the perpetrators of these schemes or at the very least, tar and feather them and throw them from office (preferably through a window from an upper story).
With respect to crime, no one need profit from it but the VICTIM of the crime should most surely be made whole by the criminal. If there is no way to do that (as with a murder or something equally heinous), then prison or SWIFT execution would be in order, with the miscreant compelled to work to pay for his or her own incarceration expenses. Conversely, if there is no victim to make whole, because there was NO VICTIM of the “crime,” then no crime was committed, no matter that someone may have broken a law (that probably should not be on the books, ANYWAY!).
See my post 258...