[sauropod]

"celebrated" ... "comprehensively researched" ... "the nation’s rich white fathers crafted a form of “popular government” (their deeply deceptive term)" ..."sanctified the epic un-freedom and anti-democracy of black chattel slavery"... ..."negates popular sovereignty, as intended" ... ..."The same corporate and financial largesse that plays such a critical role in tilting the nation’s elections towards the business-friendly right"...

And this bon mot:

"Certainly, it’s absurd to think that a document crafted by wealthy slave-owners, merchants, and other vast property-holders with the explicit purpose of keeping the “wicked” popular majority and its “secret sigh for redistribution” at bay can function in meaningful service to popular self-rule in the 21st (or any other) century.

This is a poorly written article. When you have to use words as "celebrated" and "comprehensively researched" to describe the authorities you reference (itself a giant logical fallacy), you've lost the argument.

'Pod.

[sauropod]

Just to be clear, I was objecting to the use of the word “sanctified” with respect to the Consititution originally including the institution of slavery within it.

I certainly do not object to the banning of said institution!