Replies

I'd be more interested in debate if I even suspected that the author had actually read the document in question. No, believe it or not, the fundamental premise of the Constitution is not to be captured in the infantile formulation "to keep the King from stealing your stuff." Nor are we to be guided by that paragon of Constitutional theory, Fareed Zakaria, who managed to type this howler with a straight face: "Zakaria pointed out that the U.S. is doomed to fall behind other countries in the world because of political gridlock both constitutional (checks and balances) and procedural (filibusters)." Really? Which other countries? And "fall behind" in what sense?

One cannot help from smiling at the solemn invocation of the credit rating of publicly-issued bonds as a measure of governmental excellence, as if either author had a faint clue what he is talking about. That isn't the purpose of the Constitution. The measure there, and it has been from the very beginning, is the protection of the liberty of the individual citizen. The "inefficiency" inherent in checks and balances was placed there deliberately for that purpose. This isn't complicated, it used to be a part of grade-school curricula before the emphasis was shifted toward the ability of five-year-olds to put a condom on a banana.

However, the Constitution was also designed - Article V - to be subject to modification should political geniuses such as Zakaria and the author manage to convince a supermajority of their fellow citizens to agree to dispense with this outdated piece of parchment. However bleak my personal view is of the march of ignorance within American society, we're not that dumb yet, thank God.