Um excuse you the Constitution was ratified in 1788, so it has ONLY been active for 236 years, thus your entire argument is invalid 
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
170 points (97.8% liked)
chapotraphouse
13533 readers
1026 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I thought op was talking about the treaty of tordesillas
Go for it. In fact I actually mind if you don't fart on it
Magna Farta 
Gee almost like Christianity is a bad model for how to run a society.
I mean, yes, but the founding idiots were mostly Unitarian, transcendentalist, deists, or some mixture of contradictory beliefs. And these beliefs were not even a reason or justification as to why they did anything. James Madison is especially clear that his goals are to protect the landed class.
In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability...
The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from, and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.
I think organized Christianity was still the water they were all swimming in, though, and it doesn't seem coincidental that it was popular with both the late Roman empire and the kings of the middle ages as an ideological scaffold for a stratified class system.
Acts 4:32-35
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Idk this sounds pretty cool to me 
Yeah, but then there's passages about how to treat your slaves.
Almost as if there's no consistency in a book originally passed down through word of mouth and then elaborated on by a couple dozen authors.
And then they all lived happily ever after. The End.
Boy I sure am glad that the Church never changed from this communist model!
Just 20 centuries of nonstop good vibes and sharing!
Bunch of landed aristocrats acting in self interest is exactly who you expect to found the ultimate dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and why the whole 'its a republic' sorts just play into it heavier than most. They were heavy into mysticism (John Dee comes to mind as one of their mystical inspirations, though they used that Rousseau and whatever else Enlightenment thinker fraternity of humanity concept as just lip service and its nothing but white Christian supremacy ever more codified in ever more obscure legal jargon), since economically its required to have that degree of dissonance and act on it, since if you're too rational you don't fall for such simplicity and realize its short sighted to try to steal from so many to benefit so few and think you're better than everyone else and generally be immune to but the most idle dreams of selfcrit. I don't buy 'hurr durr it was meant to be a living document', that idle argument doesn't line up to English derived legal system imo.
that Rousseau and whatever else Enlightenment thinker fraternity of humanity concept as just lip service and its nothing but white Christian supremacy ever more codified in ever more obscure legal jargon
This is unironically the source of all that talk of “egalitarian values” that the US laughably claims it has. According to Settlers “freedom and egalitarianism” always meant “egalitarianism” among the bourgeoisie. We have our class interests so old money nepo babies need to work alongside lesser bourgeoisie that own car dealerships. One colonist even laughed at how the colonies are a utopia because all the “citizens” (white settlers) didn’t have to work.
look i want to respect your basic human dignity but uh these ancient slavers said that i cant sorry
Even the liberals know this one:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" — Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Um actually he meant electorally, meaning we have to water the tree of liberty with ballots. 
"The tree of liberty must be fed occasionally with the compost of biodegradable ballots" — Thomas Jefferson, probably
*after brunch.
My favorite part of the judicial church is when the main mystic needs a lesser mystic (read: expert) to come in and divine a scroll, and you have to pay for that.
farting has been criminalized so if you do they might incarcerate you and make you do slave labor
Literally 1984.
But my founding daddys!
Amerikkka shaytan al akbar!
Its not perfect, but its the only thing that works, sweaty
Alright, but how do you feel being a slave to 9 elders in robes just deciding whatever owns the libs is law that supercedes that of nominally elected officials?
We must consult the Elders to read from the Holy Book and divine its meaning 
book, lol. when they say they're off to consult the magic book, what they mean is that they go down to the basement, kill a cow and do divination on its innards. aint no way they're reading books.
"we have to interpret this in a way the framers intended"
they intended racism and sexism