It’s been many years since I read Fred Pohl’s Search the Sky, but I still recall a passage where someone praises the Framers of the US Constitution for creating one of the best documents of the eighteenth century, the damns them for “visiting it in all its unworkable beauty on the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first centuries”
This rather anticipates some complaints I’ve heard from recent political commentators, while the story includes a society ruled by old dodderers, which would be predictive had Biden not withdrawn.
Search the Sky sounds fascinating. Curious: I gather the implication was that the Constitution was inadequate for the times that followed. Was the fault in the Constitution or in human nature? Did the story offer specific criticisms or suggestions?
I’m no Constitutional scholar, but it seems that common debates are rooted in the Framers not having perfect foresight of technological evolution, and 18th-century grammar and vocabulary leaving room for people to hear what they want to hear.
Probably mainly human nature. I can’t see slavery being resolved without a fight whatever the Constitution said. Britain managed it but only because the slaves were out in colonies not represented in Parliament., and that we had a standing army to scotch any revolt.
Nor, looking at how various European states are going, do I assume that a different Constitution would necessarily help much today. After all, with a European-style Parliamentary setup, it would be even easier for the Trump supporters to gain a monopoly of power.
Personally, I think the Framers did the best they could have at the time, but I still understand why others think differently.