(01-23-2020, 02:20 PM)hazard Wrote:(01-23-2020, 12:41 PM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: I honestly think the latter is what at least some Republicans are working toward. After all, it was written by a bunch of liberals (who else would rebel against a government based around a monied and entrenched upper class?) and it's clearly biased against Republicans (it forces them to share power and abide by election results, and requires government employees to swear to uphold it instead of the whims of the President, just to start...). It's very obviously the Deep State they've been railing against.
The other monied upper class that has no power among the monied and entrenched upper class who make the rules. The USA's voting system has historically favoured specific groups of people and breaking it from that and expanding enfranchisement to an automatic suffrage system is not a process that is by any measure complete.
Rebelling offered the monied upper class of the colonies the option to write the laws themselves. It was a risky gambit by any measure and there's a large number of other factors involved, but it's fairly accurate to say that it wasn't done solely for the benefit of the common man of the Americas who was being abused.
I would argue that if this were the case then we wouldn't have the Bill of Rights. That said, it was a bit of Column A and a bit of Column B, hence the compromises that were made from the outset.