roachboy

they wouldn't be pure. the bill of rights is a problem, presumably.

citadel: i'm entirely aware of these writings. and to don my historian hat for a moment, there's no way methodologically that the federalist papers or the fragmentary minutes of the constitutional convention or the correspondence of the participants even can be used in the way that strict constructionists would do. it's incoherent as history. but it does allow for disengenuous mysticism. by that i mean simple statements about preferences originating with ultra-right wing marginals/neofascists are put into the mouths of the "framers" or "founders" as if they are basically finger puppets.

bad history, bad interpretation, reactionary politics.
defend it if you want.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite