I was disappointed in Mr. Dickson”s Saturday column. I am privileged to know Gary and feel he is a good person, I wish I felt the same concerning his knowledge of the culture and beliefs of the late 1700s and the origin of the Constitution.
No question, it is a magnificent document, but it reflects the times and values prevalent when it was drawn, rather than in the 21st century.
Mr. Dickson”s condemnation of Justice Bader-Ginsberg”s remarks reflects a major problem in our country. In context, her remark was based on the fact that, for many of the present concerns, the Constitution (or any document 225 years old) is simply inadequate. Not wrong, just behind times. Her views are shared by many. The vast majority of scholars (in appropriate disciplines) agree that the “same” authors, born after 1965 or so (same age as the authors), would produce a vastly different document, but one that fits the requirements of the present day.
To its credit, the Constitution was the second try at such a document. The first try was the Articles of Confederation (1777). It was a failure because it failed to define and specify “power” and had no provisions for funding the nation. By 1787 it was obvious something had to be done. The existing power structure set up the convention, not the “Founding Fathers” although there were some.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, for example, were not among the 55 delegates from the 12 states represented. The delegates were the country”s political elite, very different from the rest of the population. The Constitution, as produced, is a magnificent compromise. For example, we have a bicameral form of government because the delegates from the smaller states wanted an offset to the larger populations of the larger states and an electoral process that favors smaller states. So much for the “one man, one vote,” concept. The southern states wanted to increase their population so they forced the “3/5ths” rule where their possessions, slaves, were counted as 60 percent human for the sake of census taking.
The original version was without the Bill of Rights. It was the influence of the state of New York ? which refused to approve the Constitution as the required ninth state ? without such a bill of rights. The convention quickly added what are now the first 10 amendments based of concerns of the time, enabling New York to ratify and the deal was done in 1788. 39 of the 55 delegates signed. Benjamin Franklin was skeptical and later (1816) Thomas Jefferson noted that “Institution must advance also,” referring to the Constitution.
Mr. Dickson suggests that the authors of the Constitution “didn”t appear to be interested in a large number of entitlements for American citizens. True, but largely because many of the values and concepts we enjoy today simply were not known, or even dreamed of, in 1787. The mass of Americans lived not unlike the Londoners described by Dickens. Corporations were virtually unknown. A slave owner could rape with impunity and then profit if the rapee gave birth to “another asset,” even more valuable if it had lighter color. The general attitude was to let people die if they couldn”t find food and shelter and die quickly if they got sick so they wouldn”t infect “good people.”
Lastly, I think most people do not think the present amendment process is adequate and would much prefer a direct vote procedure. Regardless, I can only say that I wish I was aging nearly as well as our Constitution.
Guthrie “Guff” Worth
Lakeport
