By framing our revolutionary proposals in Constitutional terms, we minimize the outlawing of our actions. By the Amendment Provision, theoretically, very radical changes in the Constitution itself are CONSTITUTIONAL or eminently legal. Nathan was correct in arguing that a mass movement must underlie the changes.
Charles Brown
>>> Michael Perelman <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu> 05/22/99 04:19PM >>>
Margaret called the constitution egalitarian. What? A black is a fraction of a
man, and like women denied the vote.
The founding fathers were interested in the preservation of property. They were worried that the electorate could get too uppity under the articles of confederation. They wanted more trade and more financial control.
The document was prepared under fraudulent conditions (supposedly a minor alteration of some technical matters in the Articles of Confederation), debated under the greatest secrecy, and then ratified under undemocratic and probably fraudulent conditions.
The Constitution offers a few protections, but most of them have been grotesquely distorted (e.g. freedom of speech for corporations). We should hold fast to these protections since we have so few, but reverence ....?
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu