•At 30, John DeWitt mentions the political attacks on those who dare to question the Constitution and the haste with which its backers are pushing it through ratification. At 51 through 55, he argues that everybody should be able to study the document and express his honest opinion. In New York, such discussion had already led to violence. While conceding the need for the Union, he asks to slow down the process. To what extent was he right, considering the various crises of the time?
•At 53, he states that “every man is a traitor to himself and his posterity who shall ratify it [the Constitution] with his signature without first endeavoring to understand it.” Compare this sentiment with the haste to pass a healthcare bill on the part of congressmen who haven’t even read it. How can we apply DeWitt’s arguments to that issue?
It's interesting to note His use of an alias and line 30 seems to point to the reason for such. It isn't inconceivable that he feared retribution in some form for simply stating his opinions. At the end of the war there was retribution against those who supported the King. DeWitt must have recognized the danger inherent in taking a position on such an important matter. I can imagine he would have lost some sleep to thoughts of tar and feathers earned by his efforts. Not in any way do I imply cowardice, the passions of a crowd are unpredictable and the use of an alias is one way to insulate oneself. Interestingly, he calls upon others to discuss the subject openly, at their own peril, I suppose.
These were men of action, having seen the results of their previous efforts realized in the form of a free and independent nation. Results were expected and not simply hoped for. To delay excessively would be gambling that the 'men of design' would take any advantage they could. Consider the way our nation united after the September 11th attacks. How long could that window have stayed open? Action had to be taken, I can't imagine how devastating it would have been to have 'tabled the motion'. In which instance would the passions have run higher?
•At 71, he points out that the able administration of government is the key and that everything will not automatically turn rosy once the Constitution is ratified and the new government inaugurated. That he was right is incontrovertible, but why? How do form and function intersect here?
71 Let us not deceive ourselves; the only excellency of any government is in exact proportion to the administration of it.
The answer is that the Constitution is only a single tool in the toolbox used to pursue the perfection of government. The Constitution is the point of tangency where form and function meet.
I like that. I might even use that in a tagline.