

Since that's not going to happen, I'm afraid we're left to keep it together with duct tape and bailing wire. Why shouldn't it be recast in a manner by people wishing it would address the problem? I fail to understand the immorality of that. The long-dead Founders couldn't have foreseen everything; they didn't, and it's absolutely stupid to depend on that document and the debates about it at the time to solve every dispute and conflict and to continue to guide us more than 230 years later. Jefferson didn't think the Constitution could or should last more than 20 years.



The Constitution was also written by men who thought we would avoid factioning, which would have made the US a one party state .



I didn't say the difference between the rich and the poor. I said class differences, which means in the modern, post-Marxism sense.



(And please, don't start arguing against Marxism. I'm only using that as a reference point of when workers became a political entity as well.)



The editorial board on a newspaper? If some such individual like Joseph Pulitzer is willing to say it's his message, and he fully agrees with it, why would it be a problem?



Right now, the Internet works on the basis that the carrier cannot be held responsible for what somebody posts to the site. If you want to know, that seems to work very well. Why not just apply that to "real life?" Or is it that we can't because the Founders didn't think of it?



Everything I say is provisional, just to give some other ideas. I'll read Howard Zinn on Saturday. I'm busy till Thursday, and Friday I'll read Citizens United. Until after that, I'm not make any other comments about this.



