<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Charles, I think Mike and Doug are taking the view first put forward by Charles and Mary Beard in their 1913 book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution.  This book which is now a widely accepted classic more or less said that the Constitution had been shaped by conservative economic interests.  The Beards interpretation could also be said to say that the people who shaped the document were acting in their own economic interests or in the interest of people with similar economic interests as their own. i.e. their class interest. I'd love to get a discussion going on the whole corporate chartering process.  The role of state legislatures and state attorney generals in this process. Your email pal, Tom L.     Charles Brown wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Yes, the Constitution might be best thought of as a site of continuing struggle ( even though our side seems to be on the disabled list in the current part of the "season"). "The People" win some, even the first few lines, but, the Big Cigars are always taking things back. 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@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@ecst.csuchico.edu</blockquote> </html>