>The US has a peculiar attachment to its current constitution and it's founding fathers.
We have an attachment to the document because that's the blueprint for our government. A nation of laws and not men. The founding fathers some people are more attached to than others.
Many people (like me) believe if you're going to have a written constitution the meaning of the document is fixed, so you have to use secondary sources to be clear on how it was understood when it was ratified. Thus the arguments about "what did the founding fathers really mean".
>The hell what they meant, they were wrong!
No, they weren't. They understood tyranny, having lived under it. You'd think after the 20th century people would be a little leery of investing too much power in their government, but I guess Santayana was right after all.
We have an attachment to the document because that's the blueprint for our government. A nation of laws and not men. The founding fathers some people are more attached to than others.
Many people (like me) believe if you're going to have a written constitution the meaning of the document is fixed, so you have to use secondary sources to be clear on how it was understood when it was ratified. Thus the arguments about "what did the founding fathers really mean".
>The hell what they meant, they were wrong!
No, they weren't. They understood tyranny, having lived under it. You'd think after the 20th century people would be a little leery of investing too much power in their government, but I guess Santayana was right after all.