Whatever political observations may be made, we shouldn’t miss the fact that we’re talking about humanly devised systems of government. To go down the hypothetical rabbit trail of Henry or Madison or whomever would present us with a system that would also be vulnerable to the corruption of humanity.
Many forefathers were in agreement that even the compromise embraced by the Constitution could not be made to work among a people who refused to be moral and godly. And so we have seen it with our own eyes.
Agreed. I will take it further and even go as far as to say, several of the founders agreed that the nation, under this new constitution would only limit government by the checks and balances the citizens enforced. It was to be a government for the people by the people. They had faith that the values and morals of the nations charter of freedom and liberty would be minded by the people. It is we the people that have been asleep at the switch for so long through apathy and self inflicted ignorance.
The constitutions gives many avenues to stop a repressive government. Our problem is the first step is electing the representation that stands for the values we promote here at FR. The next step is redress of grievances. Beyond that, there is laws that are written by our government for our government and legal action that relies on the honesty and fairness of an oppressive government. Our forefathers hoped that American's would rise up against a government that had become oppressive and to take up arms if necessary. If not, then the sacrifices made during the revolutionary war would be in vain, even 200+ years later.
I would only concede that as limited of powers as the constitution addressed for the fed, it left the explanation broad. To be specific enough to address the issues we face today, the constitution would have had to be thousands of pages long and the founders would have had to be able to see into the future.
Considering they were only human, I think they did a fine job.
All systems share that weakness. But this is not a rabbit hole, and it's not hypothetical--this is scientific method. We have two sets of arguments (hypothoses) at the time of the ratification. And now we have 200 years of history (data and experiment)and so we can form concusions (results).
True, we can't know what might have been. Would human weakness and corruption have been an issue under any system? Of course, a fact that demolishes this other point...
Many forefathers were in agreement that even the compromise embraced by the Constitution could not be made to work among a people who refused to be moral and godly.
Which is why it was a mistake to enact a government so vast, so far reaching, and so powerful. It wasn't necessary. We needn't have had this beast. It's not a rabbit hole. It's where we are. It ought to be honestly accounted for and reckoned, for posterity's sake if nothing else.