
Crazy idea but we can have the same freedoms (and more!) without the law being based on a 200 year old decree that white land-owning men should be the only citizens. It’s not infallible, it’s been changed throughout American history, why not create something new that leads to better representation? I will never understand this undying loyalty to a piece of paper.
The principles the document are based on are very much still the same. White land-owning men have historically benefited from the American system and will undoubtedly continue to do so in the future, coming from a white man who also benefits greatly under this system. If you had to add in “btw women and non-whites are people too” after the fact perhaps it wasn’t the best to begin with.
The initial principles in the document didn’t include things like abolition, feminism, or equal voting rights, things that threaten “white, land-owning men”. But we added them because the constitution and its principles are a living document subject to improvement. Anything people make isn’t going to be perfect first try. That’s why we have a system to make our constitution better as we go. As the play Hamilton says, “The Constitution’s a mess. So it needs amendments”
Man someone doesn’t like Hamilton. let me clarify: The play makes the point that the US Constitution wasn’t initially perfect. The lines encapsulate the core of our discussion: that the constitution was, and is, flawed, but we have a system in place to improve it. I figured it would be a fun reference to sum up my opinion, but if you can’t tell the difference between citing a source and making a pop culture reference, maybe I overestimated your reading skills.