Of late, interest in the Constitution has taken on an intensity matched only by the political schizophrenia necessitating this fevered return. And small wonder. No longer content to be the midwives of the law, the Judiciary routinely forsakes the written word in favor of an “evolving” brand of justice; our Legislature is forever unsure of how to execute its responsibilities or advocate for its rights; and the Executive branch, for its part, simply ignores the 288-year-old parchment. Every day one hears the lament that the “system is broken” quickly followed by the usual “but what’s the alternative?” The alternatives, of course, are manifold and were hotly contested during the ratification debates. For those searching for solutions to our modern political ills, it is time for a sojourn to 1787.
The atmosphere surrounding the ratification debates in America produced a rarified period in our history. Not only were disputations by philosopher-statesmen taking place behind closed doors, but out in the street and in every tavern, church, and home, the most ordinary people were busy debating the most extraordinary things. It is impossible to imagine both the gravity and excitement of the environment, but Alexander Hamilton comes close in the opening salvo of Federalist I:
it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country . . . to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined
