[loveliberty2]

"60. If there are errors, it should be remembered that the seeds of reformation are sown in the work itself and the concurrence of two-thirds of the Congress may at any time introduce alterations and amendments.

"61. Regarding it, then, in every point of view, with a candid and disinterested mind, I am bold to assert that it is the best form of government which has ever been offered to the world.

What a remarkable conclusion in his No. 61!

In No. 60, however, he directs attention to the what may be described as a unique provision and protection of "the People's" rights provided by the new Constitution. Here, he highlights the only valid means by which that Constitution can be amended, as laid out in Article V's specifications.

In his oration at Philadelphia on July 4, 1788, Wilson--signer of both the Declaration and Constitution--declared, "A good constitution is the greatest blessing which a society can enjoy." (As quoted in "Our Ageless Constitution," Page 172)

Thank you for providing this excellent study.

[Bigun]

What a remarkable conclusion in his No. 61!

Remarkable and very correct IMHO!

[Publius]

Here, he highlights the only valid means by which that Constitution can be amended, as laid out in Article V's specifications.

Actually, that isn't completely true. There is also "A Convention for Proposing Amendments...as Part of This Constitution".

[LearsFool]

"61. Regarding it, then, in every point of view, with a candid and disinterested mind, I am bold to assert that it is the best form of government which has ever been offered to the world."

What a remarkable conclusion in his No. 61!

Indeed!

But then the question becomes, what went wrong?

[LearsFool]

But then the question becomes, what went wrong?

The point I was (ineptly) trying to make is that the Constitution, great and glorious blueprint that it is, is inadequate to the task of governing us.

Yes, Wilson's defense of it seems a bit naive in hindsight. And yes, others we'll no doubt encounter in the study will do a better job. But we've seen already that Bryan anticipated weaknesses that have been proven by time and experience.

The danger we face with this study (and again I risk hijacking the discussion!) is emerging with an esteem of the Constitution even greater than the one we all had at the outset. It is a blueprint, a very wise and very prudent blueprint, one we can follow or ignore. It's our choice, and I'm convinced that all of us in this book club realize where each of those choices leads.

What has come to concern me more and more lately is the question of why we have made the wrong choice. When we as a nation have rejected the Constitution or allowed it to be rejected by our governments, why have we done so? Or, what national conditions have allowed politicians to reject it?

Bryan argued (as I understand him) that freedom is best protected when government is closest to the people, and that a national government could therefore pose a grave threat to freedom. Yet he also reminded us that virtue is a necessary condition of freedom.

The Constitution cannot guarantee our virtue, of course. Rather, it requires of us virtue, in order for it to fulfill its purpose without threatening our freedom.

The Constitution is therefore a double-edged sword: If we meet its requirements, it will restrain government and protect our freedom; if we don't, it will create a fertile soil for every despotic impulse to take root.

In short, having this most magnificent Constitution is (to mix my metaphors even further) like owning a nice Mossberg home-defense pump shotgun. Just having it is not enough. Admiring its flawless design and construction is not enough. For it to do its job requires something of us; and if we haven't got what it takes, this tool will be taken from our hands and used against us.

I'm approaching this study, then, from a "Lord of the Rings" perspective: If the awesome powers of this Constitution were to fall into the wrong hands, how can we ensure freedom will still survive?