Part 2: A New U.S. Constitution

In an 1849 speech to the Massachusetts Bible Society and at that time a twice elected member to Congress’ House of Representatives and later appointed House Speaker, his following words echoed several of the newly formed United States government charters and their Founding Fathers:

“All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they may have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them…”

robert charles winthrop

We continue now from Part 1, A New U.S. Constitution

Our 18th Century Constitution Nurtures Political & Economic Inequality Today

Mr. R.C. Winthrop, a respected lawyer and descendant of Governor John Winthrop from the original 1630 Massachusetts Bay Colony, in his speech essentially repeated what several U.S. Founding Fathers and Constitutional framers believed, designed, and ratified six decades earlier in Philadelphia at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It was the widely held belief that people, especially men and their innate predisposition toward unbecoming vices and selfish misconduct (sin?), had to be governed one way or another. Or they at least required protections, supervision against unfair and partial laws which might oppress particular segments of society, and vice versa.

One of those Founding Fathers was Alexander Hamilton. At the Philadelphia Convention he told its members:

Give all power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give all power to the few, they will oppress the many. Both therefore ought to have power that each may defend itself agst. [sic] the other.

And Hamilton was not the only one advocating for fair laws, supervisions, and protections for all classes of society. But it’s worth noting here too that human slavery and trafficking in America had been thriving for many, many decades and oddly enough, Hamilton’s words, his colleagues’ words, and even Winthrop’s words had little or no meaning whatsoever for non-whites or women. Nevertheless, what these great men sought was the promotion of maximum economic opportunity inside a dynamic and growing nation with some protections for legitimate wealth.

Signing of the Constitution, 1787 Philadelphia Convention — oil painting by Howard Chandler Christy, 1940

What was meant by legitimate wealth in the minds of our 18th and 19th century Founders? Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Paine, and a host of secondary Founders all agreed that hereditary wealth accumulation like what existed in Great Britain’s society and Parliament, was in fact a heavily corrupting factor on a Republic’s governing body which would inevitably cheat and oppress “the many.” As recent history had shown them with the collapse and/or overthrows of several imperial European kingdoms and monarchies in the 16th–18th centuries, to deter such tyrants or wild blood-thirsty mobs from seizing power, our Founding Fathers wrote Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of our U.S. Constitution, which states:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

But here is the astonishing irony between what our Founding Fathers feared then, and what many Americans fear today and see has already happened.

In 1787’s Pennsylvania Convention and forward up to Winthrop’s 1849 speech, it wasn’t so much a foreign power’s aristocracy they saw as a serious threat. It was the potential for a powerful domestic oligarchy being created that they really feared. Several Founding Fathers were uneasy about the capability of private wealth, legitimate or not, to merge with government authority and legislation, thus destroying true republicanism. On this risk, the Constitutional framers vigorously looked to insulate government policy away from private wealth and its self-interests that, like Great Britain, had corrupted her and several other European imperial monarchies and aristocracies for several centuries or more.

One of these troubled framers was oddly enough Elbridge Gerry (left), born into a very wealthy American merchant family, of which the political practice of gerrymandering was named after, Gerry opposed the union of a central bank and a national army/navy. Why did he?

Because as had been shown in Europe, e.g. Ivan IV (the Terrible) and Oliver Cromwell to name the well-known tyrants of the time, the enormous amount of both could be used to seize total power. But the irony gets even better!

The Constitution that Congressman Gerry and the many Founding Fathers wrote in 1787, today protects a domestic oligarchy against the greater good, “We the People,” or the majority will, and does so in basic ways. A closer look at the Constitution’s original wealth protections will contrast what was meant in 1787 versus what has happened now in the 20th and 21st centuries in America. From Dr. Van Cleve and our Constitution:

The 1787 Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) protected the existing distribution of wealth in America using both legal and political means.  The Constitution contained various legal protections for private property.  For example, its “Contracts Clause” protected creditors against widespread efforts during hard times in the 1780s by debtors to reduce or escape their debts.

Van Cleve, George WilliamMaking a New American Constitution. Maroon Bells Press, 2020. Kindle Edition.

However, many other Founding Constitutional framers, mostly in the agricultural South, felt those protections did not go far enough, particularly with their mass wealth in private slaveholdings and its free labor. Southern plantation owners feared that northern interests might use their federal powers to divest or cripple their unpopular “property values,” or to be perfectly transparent, their slaves and free slave-labor. This one controversial debate over “property values” bled over into other heated arguments about fair taxation and state representation and therefore how much authority a federal government should or shouldn’t have over member states.

Main house, Destrehan Sugar Plantation, Louisiana, built in 1787-1790 — Credit: FlickrDestrehan Plantation | prayitno

Some Political-Wealth Protections Afforded by the 18th Century Constitution

  • Rigorous Limitations on Federal Taxation Powers — these prohibit taxes of “Capitation or other direct” taxes unless made by the states according to the decennial Census.
  • Indirect Wealth Protections — this is done so by rigidly fashioning large aspects of earlier generational hierarchal power, long established and in existence, thus significantly limiting its redistribution. By freezing these it greatly undermines the federal government’s sensible ability to tailor the distribution of resources and wealth fairly.

Under the 1777 Articles of Confederation—America’s first constitution—each colony or state had one equal vote in a one-house Congress. By 1786 all the Constitutional framers knew some states were substantially larger in population and wealthier than other states. As one might imagine then, this caused heated debate over fair, equal representation and how that would be defined! Even today this is a controversial topic.

Controversy aside, consider this… and study closely the following four data-tables. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey of 2021, these are the ten wealthiest states (💵) in America:

StateMedian Hsehld IncomeStateMedian Hsehld Income
10. Virginia$80,9635. California$84,907
9. Colorado$82,2544. New Hampshire$88,465
8. Connecticut$83,7713. New Jersey$89,296
7. Washington$84,2472. Massachusetts$89,645
6. Hawaii$84,8571. Maryland$90,203
Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s ACS at (accessed Oct. 19, 2022)

According to World Population Review, here are the ten most populated states (🏘️) in the U.S. in 2022:

10. Michigan10,116,0695. Pennsylvania13,062,764
9. North Carolina10,620,1684. New York20,365,879
8. Georgia10,916,7603. Florida22,085,563
7. Ohio11,852,0362. Texas29,945,493
6. Illinois12,808,8841. California39,995,077
Source: World Population Review at (accessed Oct. 19, 2022)

Notice that of the two data-tables above, only one (1) state with the largest population is a Top 10 Wealthiest state: California. And here are the U.S.’s least populated states or smallest states:

31. Nevada3,143,99141. Maine1,354,522
32. Arkansas3,025,89142. Montana1,085,004
33. Mississippi2,961,27943. Rhode Island1,061,509
34. Kansas2,934,58244. Delaware990,334
35. New Mexico2,115,87745. South Dakota896,581
36. Nebraska1,963,69246. North Dakota770,026
37. Idaho1,900,92347. Alaska724,357
38. W. Virginia1,782,95948. D.C.714,153
39. Hawaii1,441,55349. Vermont623,251
40. New Hampshire1,388,99250. Wyoming581,075
Source: World Population Review at (accessed Oct. 19, 2022)

Now, in light of the three tables above, consider this data-table of the U.S. states with the most households of millionaires, billionaires, or trillionaires in 2021:

state% of Millionaire
state% of bill-trill
10. Alaska ⚛️➡️8.18%11. Georgia 🏘️1.28%
9. Virginia 💵8.31%10. Connecticut 💵3.88%
8. New Hampshire ⚛️ 💵➡️8.47%9. Pennsylvania 🏘️1.30%
7. California 🏘️8.51%8. Nevada ⚛️➡️5.41%
6. D.C. ⚛️➡️9.12%7. Washington 💵2.71%
5. Hawaii ⚛️ 💵➡️9.20%6. Illinois 🏘️1.72%
4. Massachusetts 💵9.38%5. Massachusetts 💵3.44%
3. Connecticut 💵9.44%4. Texas 🏘️2.14%
2. Maryland 💵9.72%3. Florida 🏘️3.17%
1. New Jersey 💵9.76%2. New York 🏘️6.19%
1. California 💵4.73%
Millionaires Source: Source:

Did you notice how many least populated states or tiny states (⚛️) are listed in the Top 10 Wealthiest states and those with the most millionaires, billionaires/trillionaires (💵)? Look again. Do you see a 20th and 21st century pattern or imbalance between wealth vs. population, and therefore between fair, proportional federal representation from “We the People”?

In light of those questions, let’s consider what a core Founding Father, John Adams, had to say along with several other Founders in July 1776 at the Continental Congress. These are the archived, later handwritten notes of Thomas Jefferson recorded for posterity (emphasis mine):

John Adams advocated the voting in proportion to numbers. He said that we stand here as the representatives of the people. That in some states the people are many, in others they are few; that therefore their vote here should be proportioned to the numbers from whom it comes. Reason, justice, & equity never had weight enough on the face of the earth to govern the councils of men. It is interest alone which does it, and it is interest alone which can be trusted. That therefore the interests within doors should be the mathematical representatives of the interests without doors. That the individuality of the colonies is a mere sound. Does the individuality of a colony increase it’s wealth or numbers. If it does, pay equally. If it does not add weight in the scale of the confederacy, it cannot add to their rights, nor weigh in argument. A. has £50. B. £500. C. £1000. in partnership. Is it just they should equally dispose of the monies of the partnership? It has been said we are independent individuals making a bargain together. The question is not what we are now, but what we ought to be when our bargain shall be made. The confederacy is to make us one individual only; it is to form us, like separate parcels of metal, into one common mass. We shall no longer retain our separate individuality, but become a single individual as to all questions submitted to the confederacy. Therefore all those reasons which prove the justice & expediency of equal representation in other assemblies, hold good here. It has been objected that a proportional vote will endanger the smaller states. We answer that an equal vote will endanger the larger. Virginia, Pennsylvania, & Massachusetts are the three greater colonies. Consider their distance, their difference of produce, of interests & of manners, & it is apparent they can never have an interest or inclination to combine for the oppression of the smaller. That the smaller will naturally divide on all questions with the larger. Rhode isld, from it’s relation, similarity & intercourse will generally pursue the same objects with Massachusetts; Jersey, Delaware & Maryland, with Pennsylvania.

Jefferson, Thomas. The Works, vol. 2 (1771-1779). New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905, at

John Adams and several other Founders were clearly arguing in 1776 that it was exceedingly unwise and hazardous politically to have smaller tinier states be treated like the larger states, as economic equals and representative equals! More often than not the largest states will have different or opposing interests, let alone their voices unheard, drowned-out or disregarded, by the minority states, and thus by default, policies would be enacted against their state’s better, and possible long-term interests.

By the time of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787 numerous delegates, both publicly and privately, had agreed with Adams’ mathematical logic, especially regarding state-equality. In fact, many of them viewed individual, smaller states as far too powerful to represent accurately or fairly the federal whole, or the supermajority or even the simple majority! James Madison was one such prominent delegate. He basically felt that if the infant United States were ever going to seriously join and influence the rest of the world’s major powers, they had to work as one nation rather than two, three, or four opposing, and hence weaker sub-nations. Other world powers just would NOT take America serious if we repeatedly behaved as several bickering, defiant children (states). Or to put it another way, mostly rural agricultural states pitted equally against urban, heavily populated states.

As a consequence and a massive compromise reached, the 1787 Constitutional Convention established one of the untenable core principles for our nation to this day: a major redistribution of governmental power between all states but far fewer people.

[The Convention] based states’ relative voting strengths in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College heavily on their populations.  (In the era’s predominantly agricultural economy, states’ populations correlated very strongly to their wealth).  Many of the most important new federal powers granted by the Constitution including taxation could be exercised by majority vote, not by a supermajority as the Articles [of Confederation] had required.  Unfortunately, at the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, obtaining essential federal powers became politically possible only after very substantial concessions were made to protect powerful vested economic and political interests.


Anyone who still argues today that our U.S. federal government has the same equal power and representation as a group of tiny states, e.g. Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Nevada, Wyoming, and both Dakotas, as well as representing the simple majority of the American people is deranged. The data-tables above and the 246-year history of this nation simply does not bear out this notion.

Plain and simple, the 1787 Constitution did not establish a perfectly level playing field for a representative republic. On the contrary, delegates from the more rural colonies/states in the agricultural South with their generally smaller populations of white free-men forced two (2) enormous compromises, as described by Dr. Van Cleve:

[First], The Convention gave two Senate votes to each state, thus giving greatly disproportionate power to small states.  The Senate’s structure disregarded entirely the great disparities in states’ population and wealth. (At the time, for example, Virginia’s free population was roughly nine times the size of Delaware’s).  That meant that the six smallest of the original thirteen states, which at the time together had about 20 percent of the total free population, received 46 percent of the total Senate votes.

In a second major compromise, the Philadelphia Convention agreed to give the five major slave states exaggerated political power through the “Three-Fifths Clause.”  That provision artificially increased the slave states’ populations in allocating House of Representatives seats and Electoral College voting strength. As of 1820, slave states received a premium of about eighteen seats in the House, or 8 percent of its total seats, due to the Three-Fifths Clause. That premium substantially influenced national policies in their favor by protecting both their agricultural export economies and their persistent efforts to expand slavery westward.


This political advantage of ‘the few’ lasted for 81-years until the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in July of 1868 after victory two-years earlier by the Union Army at Appomattox, Virginia, ending the American Civil War. However, the tiny states’ enormous voting premium in the Senate chamber still exists to this day.

Small State Influence Today Aids Republicans, Protecting Wealth Inequality

Over the last 154-years due to socioeconomic progress and change, these tiny states’ impact on our federal republic have actually grown even bigger since 1787 and 1868. As of 2021, the twenty-eight smallest states of the Union together have only approximately 20% of America’s total population. But they have at least 56% of the total Senate votes! And it is common knowledge that for Congress to make beneficial policies and pass laws for the betterment of the country, these actions require support from BOTH Congressional Chambers. Our ten largest states by population, meanwhile, where over half of the U.S.’s total population resides, possess only about 20% of the Senate votes.

The Last 6 Elections – cartoon from the National Popular Vote website

The Senate has become the tiny states’ fortress for protecting and maintaining wealth inequality and political power. For the last 2-3 decades or more the Republican Party has not only recognized this huge amount of leverage, but has fiercely strengthened its impact on federal policies which favor their political and economic advantage of ‘the few’. Their voting advantage also seriously influences the Electoral College during elections as seen by eighteen total unpopular Presidents winning the White House, i.e. they did not win a majority of the popular/general vote by the American people, but won the Electoral College votes. I will examine this Senate affect on the E.C. later in the series.

You may have heard at some point during your adult life or in your high school or college classroom that the United States was formed as a Constitutional democracy. True, but not entirely. The United States was also designed to function (in theory?) as a democratic republic. The two concepts are similar, but not identical nor are they any longer interchangeable in the 20th and 21st centuries as they were in the 18th and early 19th centuries. As shown earlier, the Core Founding Fathers of our nation, six of them, eventually aligned with John Adams’ definition of our new nation:

“ No determinations are carried, it is true, in a simple or representative democracy, but by consent of the majority or their representatives.”

Adams, john – 1784

This mixed concept of a democratic republic can also be inferred from Benjamin Franklin and James Madison on the Bill of Rights Institute’s website. However, what we have in the United States today is not what Adams, Madison, Franklin, and several other Fathers envisioned nor drafted; not at all.

Due to the Constitution’s small state biases it hands one party a systematic advantage in federal elections and legislation, and to most corporate and mega-corporate interests who, since the 2010 Landmark Supreme Court decision of Citizens United vs. FEC, now wield massive, unfettered funding to political campaigns of specific candidates or political party of their own legislative corporate interests instead of individual Americans within a representative republic.

Furthermore, both this one party and the mega-wealthy corporations are generally opposed to increased economic fairness and to limiting too much wealth (and thus, huge political power) concentrated in one ideology of ‘a few’ private American executives—which ironically is exactly what happened to 16th thru 17th century Great Britain. In those two centuries all the wealth and power rested only in Britain’s elite aristocracy (oligarchy), not the voiceless commoners.

One final observation. In 235-years not much has changed with the Constitution’s provisions. However, the essence of American society certainly has changed and drastically. In 2021–2022 greater than 80% of Americans live in urban areas. Let me repeat that: more than 80%! In 1787 though, 95% of Americans lived in rural areas. This colossal change is still not reflected today in our Bicameral Congress. Clearly, the modern United States is not a representative democracy by John Adams’ and the Founding Fathers’ definitions.

The Constitution’s “Separation of Powers Has Become Defunct

At the heart of our Constitution and its framers was the deep fear of too much centralized authority with one body or one tyrant, king, or queen, as was manifested in King George III and Britain’s Parliament between 1760 and 1820. Therefore, they created three different types or branches of equal power: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches. These three equal powers balanced the national government as well as making each monitor or check and balance the other two branches for appropriate and legal conduct. As noted, the framers did this for two primary reasons:

  1. Protection against tyranny (e.g. Richard M. Nixon and Donald J. Trump). Separation of powers was intended to divide the federal government’s lawmaking and law-enforcement powers and prevent them from becoming overcentralized and tyrannical.
  2. To Prevent Aggrandizement of Power by any one branch. In other words, these Separation of powers were intended to prevent any one branch from abusing its designated powers by equally empowering the other two branches to check-up on their competitor’s exercises of authority.

But this original Constitutional design depended heavily on one single factor: whatever the authority given on paper, they can only remain equal when federal leaders of all three branches seek equally to uphold the distinctive powers of their own institution or branch. This is part of their sworn vows when taking office. Over the last three decades or more this has not been happening. In fact, it has gotten worse, lopsided in power toward two branches, if not one branch. In 1788 James Madison explicitly warned about this very risk:

“ The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Madison, jamesFederalist paper no. 47, feb. 1788

The fact that over approximately the last sixty-to-seventy sessions of Congress—dating back to Ronald Reagan—Congress has “passed the buck” of legislative political responsibility over to the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch far far too often! Case and point. If Congress was originally given the authority of investigation, a form of checks-and-balances like the current January 6th Committee Hearings, but never exercises this power or only does so when it benefits their own party’s ideals, then those leaders are not protecting, much less validating their own institution/branch. What then, will incentivize these leaders to do their under oath, sworn jobs? What will light a fire under their asses? Dr. Van Cleve wisely asks several questions about the intent and purpose of the Constitution’s “Separation of Powers” to show why it is integral to protect against too much centralized authority—or more bluntly, against dictatorship and tyranny—while simultaneously providing unified power and authority when needed. These are his questions:

Why is it desirable for a president to have authority to send troops into a distant country such as North Korea, and ask Congress for approval only after they invade?
Why should members of Congress be able to serve for an unlimited number of terms, particularly if they are elected from districts or states in which there is no political competition?
Why is it desirable for Senators to be eligible to run for president after one six-year term in the Senate (or an even shorter time), if that damages the Senate as an institution?
Why should Supreme Court justices be able to serve for more than twenty-five years?
Why should the Supreme Court have the power to decide presidential elections, or to decide whether the United States can have a national healthcare insurance system?


Should any one branch or one man/woman have all of those above powers? Should one branch or one man/woman not have at least one of those above powers? Of course, in Constitutional theory these are rhetorical questions. Imagine the indecisive chaos and internal bickering that would exist during hard, challenging times demanding swift action if these above conditions were not spread out evenly, equally among our three different (opposing) branches. But today this power balance no longer exists in its pure original form. Why or why not?

An Imperial U.S. Presidency

In his personal notations called Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, James Madison wrote that remarkably the delegate’s discussions or debates about the office and function of the President were quick, timid, and made with broad strokes.

That timidness was odd and quite contrary to several Founders and delegates who had often voiced their deep fears of giving too much centralized power to one office or branch. Part of the reason for their timidness was the undeniable large presence of presiding officer of the Convention, 6-ft 2-in George Washington (above, next to his Arabian horse Magnolia). Even when quiet, Washington’s demeanor demanded utter respect and caution before speaking up. Very few Convention delegates dared to go up against the tall authoritative presence of General Washington. He was quite literally the walking, living standard of military and political leadership seemingly equal to Moses in the Old Testament.

As a result of this generally unspoken fear of George Washington, the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787 gave the Executive Branch more power than even individual state governors of the time AND total command of the entire U.S. military forces. They gave the office the power to veto Congressional legislation unless two-thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives overrode the President’s veto. They gave to the Executive Office the authority to virtually nominate ALL major federal officials and judges, though subject to Senate confirmation. And lastly, the President could only be impeached from office by a supermajority vote of Congress, something near impossible to achieve today.

This level of power and authority for the President deeply troubled Madison, Franklin, Mason, Adams, Wilson, and other delegates. Its power thrilled Alexander Hamilton though. After all, Hamilton promoted the idea that the U.S. President should serve in office for his entire life, name Cabinet members without any Senate approval, have absolute veto on Congressional legislation, and choose when and how to wage war on foreign nations.

∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼

I will stop here for now because Part 2 has become somewhat lengthy; lengthier than I had intended. In Part 3 I will finish this section about how imperial the U.S. Presidency has increasingly become starting with Franklin D. Roosevelt, and more so, with the presidents of the 21st century. How did this happen, then culminate on January 6th, 2021? Secondly, I will examine how Congress has essentially become a dysfunctional institution, enabling members of Congress to be inactive or near non-existent, yet paid to be millionaires by our taxpayer dollars. This is unfortunately caused by our bicameral system and congress members being grossly overpaid for doing too little. And finally, due to our broken Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court has by default filled the power vacuum created by our dysfunctional Congress. Furthermore, later in the series I will also explore how a sizable American conservative population actually believe that our Charters of Freedom—particularly the Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights (or the first 10 Amendments) of the Constitution—are somehow, by some paranormal superstition, “divinely inspired” on the level of the Greco-Roman Judeo-Christian gospels or Greek New Testament! Yes, though there is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim, they really do believe this. 😖

I hope you will stay tuned for the next installment of how badly we, the U.S., need a 21st century Constitution, not an antiquated 18th century one. Until then, please feel free to join in the discussions below.

Live Well – Love Much – Laugh Often – Learn Always

The Professor’s Convatorium © 2023 by Professor Taboo is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 

40 thoughts on “Part 2: A New U.S. Constitution

  1. You cannot please all of the people all of the time. But if you please the same people all or most of the time, you are creating an aristocracy, whether you call them royalty or not.
    America needs to discover how to please all or most of the people some of time, or to please different somes of the people most of the time so that the same few cannot always rule the many.
    At present, the same few — being the wealthy — always rule the many — those without wealth. This has created an inequality that is growing by leaps and bounds. Until, and if ever, this power inequality is intentionally reduced and redirected, those presently with the power and wealth will not give up that power, or the wealth that created it.
    The question is, how does anyone take that power away?
    (If you want my personal thought on that, the many must reject the value of money, and take away the power that is now tied to the possession of money. How you do that is for better minds than mine to contemplate. The thing is, the many have the minds that can accomplish this, as long as they do not allow the few to buy their minds from them!)

    Liked by 2 people

    • The question of how to separate money from power is one that has been under discussion for probably thousands of years, and no one has come up with an answer yet. At best I’d think that it would be possible to try to restrain the ability of the wealthy to interfere with politics through strict laws regarding lobbying, campaign contributions and political advertising. Unfortunately our supreme court, in its infinite stupidity, decided that corporations have pretty much the same rights as people, an that restricting the spending of money on political influence would somehow be constraining the right of free speech.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Trying to restrain the ability of the wealthy from having or not influencing power HAS NOT WORKED IN ALL THOSE THOUSANDS OF YEARS. It will never work. We the unwealthy must take the value out of money, rendering it useless no matter what they try. Imagine a world where one has to do actual work to gain the products of society, where all the money in the world cannot buy a damn thing. I know such imaginings seem pie-in-the-sky, but one can only beat their head against a brick wall for so many thousands of years before they have yo look over the wall to see a new path to try.
        We have been brainwashed to think/believe money has value, but in all actuality it does not. Our work has value. Nothing else!

        Liked by 1 person

        • Could not agree more vigorously with you Rawgod about the vapor, wind, smoke of “money” or wealth as the be all, end all of life on Earth! Meant to say this to you in my earlier comment.

          Btw, I tweaked your comment ever so slightly (at the end) and cleaned up slight typos. Hope you don’t mind Sir. 🙂


          • Mind? Thank you. I look for typos, but I never find them all. My fingers are continually hitting keys I do not intend to hit, while missing the keys I want to hit. It is the curse of having clumsy fingers.
            I very much appreciate the cleaning.

            Liked by 1 person

            • As I said, I never find all the typos. I know what I meant to write, so my old eyes see what I meant, not necessarily what is there.
              Having said that, there is the occasional time I am in a hurry, and don’t take time to proofread. I always regret those times.
              Thanis for asking!

              Liked by 2 people

          • And not to be mean, the only thing I do mind, since you brought the subject up, is being called Rawgod. The correct spelling is rawgod, no capital, and therefore no ego. (Which means I should not care how you spell rawgod, but it is the appearance that is important, if you follow my drift. Thanks.)

            Liked by 1 person

    • America needs to discover how to please all or most of the people some of time, or to please different somes of the people most of the time so that the same few cannot always rule the many.

      Agreed Rawgod, wholeheartedly. However, had recent generations of American voters learned sufficiently, or even learned “Cum Laude,” their BASIC or advanced Civic and Governmental educations—i.e. their Social Studies, History, and basic Political Science courses—they would’ve already realized that “pleasing most” of the American people was already discovered by our six (6) Core Founding Fathers and many of the delegates in 1787 Philadelphia then by 1791 after the Tenth Amendment was ratified. Granted, the 1791 Constitution was most definitely going to require more future tweaks, changes, more amendments, etc, BUT… the fundamentals were already there! Sadly, the bulk of American voters are embarrassingly ignorant and poorly educated in our civics, history, government, and political sciences. 😔 This is PART of the reason (not entirely) why our country came so close to losing our democracy completely Jan. 6, 2021.

      This is why I do MY own small part here on WordPress, as I did in my past middle school and high school public classrooms of Social Studies/History as a teacher/educator. But it must be consistent and wide-spread in public as well as private school districts to be effective nationally, and to state the obvious. 🙄

      Until, and if ever, this power inequality is intentionally reduced and redirected, those presently with the power and wealth will not give up that power, or the wealth that created it.

      And this CHANGE can absolutely take place and take place legally and peacefully! As I will eventually get to later in the series, the “We the People” can bypass the incessant power-hungry Senate from blocking a PEOPLES Constitutional Convention with the intent to make these changes or overhauling Amendments, whichever is most suitable at the time given national circumstances.

      But no big spoilers right now. 😉


      • If I may be totally honest, PT, and I mean no disrespect, the only people who are going to read your entire proliferations are people who truly care. These are not the people you need to reach.
        Shirt 30-second reads are what is needed. Long reads are ignored. Call it ADD, or whatever you want, but society today pays attention to short bursts of info, and they ignore well-thought out and proof-filled discussions. Short posts published every hour or two will go a lot farther than long posts that require a long period of focus.
        I do not want to discourage you, you write well and you know your subject matter. But the audience you need to reach prefers Instagram-type soundbites. They are not academics!

        Liked by 2 people

        • Yep, you are totally right Rawgod. No disrespect taken in the least. I am completely surrounded everywhere by the very people you precisely identified; they are lazy, they are shallow-minded, and they are clueless or un-woke. And I don’t mind ONE BIT you distinguishing them from me. I wear that badge proudly, I assure you. 😉

          But I WILL NOT sacrifice my own standards or my educated, well-informed principles nor my 120% effort and care for what our Founding Fathers sacrificed, and sacrifice dearly they did. 🙂


          • Just a question, but what has that sacrifice come to? If the people don’t care about the finer points of the Constitution, as in how the 2nd Amendment is interpreted, all the sacrifice and learned opinions come to naught.
            I admire you’re sticktoitiveness, and your honour, but those are sign of life in the Ivory Tower. The real fight happens in the mud and the moat!
            (IMO, of course.)


  2. “All pigs are equal… etc” Comes to mind.

    I sometimes look at politics the way I look at the way football teams are coached.
    If you see a system that works and the players buy into it then why the hell would you want to change?
    Look at Eddie Howe at Newcastle or Potter since he took over at Chelsea.

    Now compare their managerial style with… Say, Liz Truss or Donald Trump.

    As my son pointed out; If the manager hasn’t got the dressing room he had better be thinking about a new job.
    A sentiment more or less confirmed by old Arsenal boy, Lee Dixon the other night when discussing Steven Gerrard’s departure.

    Maybe a constitution needs to have a Performance Clause for incumbent Presidents and Prime Ministers?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well, I can fully appreciate your’s and your son’s (indirectly) thinking in how today’s football managers/coaches jobs are similar to governing a nation, ESPECIALLY the elite, wealthy, top-tier Clubs who most often bring in all the world’s Prima Donnas, both players and staff, in order to give fans (and owners, stock-holders, etc.) the image of “success,” of “hopeful excitement” in several continental trophies, and of course a fat, growing “bottom-line” of revenues and profits. To say that “expectations” of such glory & neon-lights is high in world club football/futebol and in national governments, is a gross understatement. Sometimes (most of the time?) those expectations are utterly unrealistic for a time-frame of 2-3 seasons—or in the case of our federal government: four year terms.

      Nonetheless, an appropriate “standard” (or better) must be set. And as far as TEAM football/futebol goes… your club and staff are ONLY as strong as your weakest player of 16 (subs included) and your head coach and his supporting staff. This fact/truth will never change. So along the sports or football analogy it is up to the other 15-players and coaching staff to develop those weaker players… into the Club’s standard. Simple, right? 😉 Hence, in our case (the USA), we must develop our ‘WEAKEST’ citizens into eventual strong team-players… or high-quality coaching staff!!! Unfortunately, far too many Americans not only DON’T grasp this concept & truth, but worse they’re so afraid and paranoid that it hints of or wreaks of socialism!!! OMFG, say it isn’t so… say it can’t be socialism or we’ll all turn into stone!!! 😱

      And yet the best, consistent, winningest football Clubs in the world know full well… it IS all about a formula of socialism where it takes all 11-players and substitutes (and the staff) to succeed and succeed regularly. Care to guess which states of our 50-states have been dismally weak, LAST in every single category of life? And they’ve remained at the very bottom since at LEAST the end of the American Civil War! IOWs, we will never be as great as the US of A could be… as long as we have so many bad, struggling, ignorant, weak, and impoverished players (states) that we’ve had for well over a century-and-a-half or more. Period.

      It takes the ENTIRE village—all of them strong, smart, highly capable—to one day make it into an empire. We’ve NEVER come close to that. Not ever in our national history.

      Liked by 1 person

        • Ding ding ding ding! 💯⭐ You’re a WINNER Ark! Come on down to the Magnolia State, the Pelican State (Louisiana), or the “Heart of Dixie” (Alabama) states and see for yourself… how backwards and still living in the 1800’s these worst, poorest, least educated states truly are! 🤩🥳 You’ll LOVE IT Ark! 🤭

          Not sure if you remember or not, but I went 4-yrs to university in Mississippi, then stayed and lived there for another 8+ years. Saw every corner of the entire state all the bad… and sadly, all the very opulent zip codes that were only in very specific, deliberately chosen locations. Louisiana sometimes trades places (last place) with Mississippi as the worst, but the Magnolia State almost always captures the embarrassing title(s) of The Worst in Everything. And believe me, the specific people (race) there who COULD make it all change, simply do not care and don’t want their cesspool status to change! They haven’t since the Civil War. It is utterly mind-boggling Ark as to why. 🤦‍♂️

          Liked by 1 person

  3. Very well done. I can’t remember ever reading an analysis of the situation as well thought out, well reasoned and well researched as this.

    You pointed out how the congress has become dysfunctional and that it is the reason we’re facing a lot of these problems, and I believe you are absolutely right in that. Basically we have a bunch of whining, shivering cowards over there in D.C. who are so terrified of offending the moneyed powers that operate this system of legalized bribery we laughing call a government that they are willing to do anything to avoid taking any kind of responsibility for anything.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. No insult intended, but I didn’t read your extended post, PT (you know why, I’m sure).

    However, I have read the comments and just want to add this: Certainly, our Constitution has seen its best days and drastically needs updating. However, I think most of us realize that the conditions you describe have existed for many, many years and will probably continue for many, many more years.

    And the thing is, even if we were to make changes … would we be able to find an unbiased, neutral, and objective group of individuals who could work together to “improve” it?

    This is not a throw-up-your-hands and accept it comment. Just reality.

    Liked by 1 person

    • 😄 Yes Nan, I know why. To each their own, huh? 😉

      However, I think most of us realize that the conditions you describe have existed for many, many years and will probably continue for many, many more years.

      Yes, it is not only astonishing how so SO many people hate and/or are scared of change but how long we (bull frogs) will sit in the frying pan as it gets hotter and hotter and hotter… until it’s too late. HAH! 🤦‍♂️ We certainly seem to be creatures of incessant habit, to a horrible fault if I may say so.

      No, let’s DEFINITELY NOT throw-up-our-hands! 👍🏻 I care way too much about what sort of a world and country my kids, grandkids, and their children will inherit from us. 😉


  5. You need a button labeled “Very Much Liked” and I have a small question. In your table of “the U.S.’s least populated states or smallest states” I found “D.C.” which I assume is the District of Columbia, which is technically not a state. Yet the list stops at 50, so which state got left off of the list to include a non-state?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Reblogged this on Filosofa's Word and commented:
    A couple of weeks ago, I re-blogged the first in a series Professor Taboo is doing about the ways in which we have ‘outgrown’ parts of the U.S. Constitution, written back in 1787. The foundation is still sound, but the framework could use some ‘shoring up’ to bring it into the 21st century! If I make a chore list at the beginning of the week, I will no doubt have to adjust it by mid-week due to oversight or previously unforeseen circumstances, and the same is true of a document drafted 235 years ago! Today, I share with you Part II in the Professor’s project … a thoughtful and thought-provoking analysis that is definitely worth reading! Thank you, Prof!


  7. Pingback: At the Body Shop | The Professor's Convatorium

  8. Pingback: Part 3: A New U.S. Constitution | The Professor's Convatorium

Go Ahead, Start the Discussion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s